
0° * 



- ■■ 




: 




THE 

£crijmtvc Zt&timonm 

TO THE 

DIVINITY 

OF 

OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, 

COLLECTED AND ILLUSTRATED. 



BY THE 

REV. GEORGE HOLD EN, M. A, 



Catholica Ecclesia unum Deum in Trinitatis plenitudine, et item 
Trinitatis sequalitatem in una Divinitate veneratur. 

Vincentius, cap. xxii. 

LONDON: X 
PRINTED FOR F. C. & J. RIVINGTON, 

NO. 62, ST. PAUL'S CHURCH-YARD, 
AND NO. 3, WATERLOO-PLACE, PALL-MALL. 




1820. 



3^ • 



Printed by R. Gilbert, St. John's Square, London. 



PREFACE. 



The doctrine of the ever-blessed Trinity has 
engaged the attention of learned and inquisitive 
believers, from the first origin of Christianity; it 
cannot, therefore, be reasonably expected that 
many new and important arguments can now be 
adduced in its support. Yet the numerous and 
elaborate works which have hitherto appeared re- 
lative to this interesting subject, can scarcely be 
thought to supersede all further attempts. Scrip- 
ture knowledge is not so easily exhausted ; not- 
withstanding the talents and erudition of preceding 
writers, some gleanings have been left to subse- 
quent diligence and research ; and the toilsome, 
but useful task remains of collecting and methodis- 
ing what has been advanced by the most eminent 
Divines in defence of the holy Trinity. 

In the following pages, the Author has not been 
studious of novelty, for that which appears new to 

a2 



iv 



him, bears only a small proportion to the whole ; 
neither has he attempted to present any new view 
of this awful and mysterious subject. Subtle and 
recondite speculations upon the nature of the Three 
Persons, their Union and Distinction, are com- 
monly more ingenious than just. The Almighty 
shrouds himself in the darkness of his pavilion ; the 
weak powers of man cannot penetrate the conse- 
crated obscurity ; and the first step beyond the 
boundary of revealed wisdom leads into the regions 
of wild conjecture and absurdity. His design, 
moreover, did not extend to the general proof of 
the Trinitarian faith ; but, in the conviction that, 
if Christ's divinity can be demonstrated, the doc- 
trine of the whole and undivided Trinity will not 
be questioned, he has confined himself chiefly to 
that point, by endeavouring to combine, to vindi- 
cate from objections, and to compress within a short 
compass, the leading arguments in support of that 
fundamental article of Christian belief. 

For this purpose, his first object has been to 
collect and arrange the Scripture Testimonies to 
our Lord's essential divinity. Very strong subsi- 
diary arguments may be derived from the attestation 
of the ancient Fathers, and the prevailing creed of 
the primitive Christians ; but still the grand proof 



V 



must rest upon the clear, uniform, and indubitable 
evidence of Scripture. Hence arises the utility of 
concentrating the whole Scriptural evidence of our 
Saviour's proper deity, since, by this test, the doc- 
trine must stand or fall. Some testimonies, it is 
true, are omitted ; some designedly, either because 
they were considered unnecessary, or were of a 
doubtful kind, or would have led into too wide a 
field of discussion ; and others may have been over- 
looked through inadvertence ; but the Author has 
been anxious to render his collections complete ; 
for which reason, he has freely availed himself of 
the labours of others, having carefully consulted all 
the treatises on this subject he could procure, the 
principal of which, with the editions used, are 
enumerated at the end of this preface, 

Convinced that a bare citation would be unsatis- 
factory, it has been his wish, in the second place, 
to establish, by critical reasons, the texts adduced 
in proof of Christ's divinity. An appeal to the 
Bible in confirmation of a particular doctrine, is 
nugatory, unless it can be shewn that such an 
appeal is warranted by a rational exposition of the 
sacred Volume. A superficial reference to the au- 
thorized translation, may content those who think 
that true religion is best promoted by disseminating 



vi 

the Scriptures without note or comment ; but the 
judicious inquirer will exercise his reason upon the 
grounds of his faith, and will not assent to any 
article, except it be proved, by a critical examina- 
tion, to rest upon the decisive authority of the in- 
spired Writers. It is necessary, therefore, to evince 
that the passages appealed to in support of our 
Lord's divinity, are correctly referred to him, and 
that they do actually convey the meaning attributed 
to them. This, it is humbly conceived, may be 
accomplished by the exercise of a just and impartial 
criticism ; and in attempting this object, much 
assistance has been derived both from those who 
have professedly treated of the Trinity, and from 
the most celebrated commentators of our own and 
other countries. 

As it is imperative upon the theologian to exa- 
mine the arguments opposed to his creed, it was 
judged necessary, in the third place, to take some 
notice of the principal objections to the orthodox 
interpretation of the texts relating to the person of 
our Saviour. In the execution of this part of his 
design, the Author has had recourse to the leading 
Socinian productions of the present age, not with 
a view of examining all the arguments by which 
modern Unitarianism is propped up (for this formed 



vii 

no part of his plan, as it would have given too con- 
troversial a cast to his work,) but with the intent,, 
after stating the grounds of the exposition adopted 
by him, to rebut the objections of our opponents. 
He has not, indeed, replied to every objection that 
has been brought forward; for some are too trifling 
to require a serious answer ; and where the ortho- 
dox sense of a text is confirmed by manifestly suf- 
ficient reasons, it would be superfluous to refute 
what may be said to the contrary. He has, how- 
ever, reviewed the most plausible of the Unitarian 
glosses, and, after candidly weighing them, has 
given what he presumes to consider a full refuta- 
tion; in which he has been much indebted to those 
learned moderns, who have nobly stood forward the 
champions of Evangelic truth, against the rash 
attacks of Sabellian assailants. 

Lastly, it has been the Author's aim to include 
the whole within the shortest limits consistent with 
perspicuity. In argumentative works, extent and 
variety of illustration rather diminish than increase 
the cogency of the reasoning. If the force of an 
argument is not perceived, when briefly, yet clearly 
stated, its effect will by no means be augmented by 
placing it in different lights. In works intended to 
form compendious and useful manuals, brevity is 



Vlll 

not so much a matter of choice, as of necessity. 
Had the Author inserted all the observations he 
might have done, and indulged in all the copious- 
ness of illustration the subject admits, his book 
would have extended to three or four times its 
present dimensions ; and would, consequently, have 
deterred those from the perusal, for whose use it is 
principally designed. Though compression was 
absolutely requisite, he cannot but fear that he has 
sometimes carried it too far, and that instead of a 
succinct and luminous exposition of a Scripture testi- 
mony, he has occasionally given a dry, jejune, and 
inanimate statement. The only apology he has to 
offer for such faults is, that in a work aiming at 
concentration, it is better to err on the side of 
brevity, than of too much expansion. 

Such are the objects of this publication ; and it 
will probably be allowed, that a defence of our 
Lord's divinity, upon the plan here delineated, 
would, were it well executed, contribute something 
to the cause of sacred and immutable truth. 
Attempts of a similar design may be peculiarly 
useful at the present time, when, on the one hand, 
the atonement of our Redeemer is rejected, while 
his Godhead is insulted and denied ; and on th 
other, a hardened and deistical faction is, with a 



ix 

daring boldness, unexampled in our history, deriding 
the best feelings of human nature, vilifying insti- 
tutions the most venerable, and scoffing at those 
hallowed truths upon which are founded our dearest 
consolations in this world, and all our hopes of a 
better. 

That his work is free from imperfections, the 
Author does not suppose ; but, should the attempt 
meet with encouragement, he will gladly listen to 
any suggestion which may enable him to correct its 
faults, and to extend its usefulness. Such as it is, 
however, he submits it to the candour of the 
public ; and much as he would value the approba- 
tion of the pious and the learned, it would afford 
him still higher gratification, should his humble 
labours remove the scruples, and silence the doubts 
of any, or establish even one wavering mind in the 
faith of the absolute divinity of our blessed Lord 
and Saviour, Jesus Christ. 



In chap. vii. sect. ii. of the following work, it is 
said, that " in proof of Christ's being proposed as 
the object of divine worship, we cannot properly 
urge the numerous instances of those who fell down 
at his feet and worshipped him, as they may only 
have been acts of civil respect but since it was 
sent to press, the Author has met with Dr. Nares's 
Discourses on the Three Creeds, fyc. in which he 
contends that the verb w^oxuvsw, in these instances, 
denotes a religious homage. The Discourses, like 
his other works, manifest great learning and ability, 
and are well worthy an attentive perusal. 



LIST OF BOOKS CONSULTED. 



ALLIX's Judgment of the ancient Jewish Church against the 
Unitarians. 8vo. Lond. 1699. 

Bishop Burnet's Exposition of the XXXIX Articles. Fol. 
Lond. 1737. 

Bishop Burgess's Brief Memorial. 8vo. Lond. 1814. 

The Bible and Nothing but the Bible, &c. 

8vo. Carmarthen. 1815. 
Two Sermons, Oxford, 1790, and Llanarch, 

1814. 

Dr. Bennet's Discourse on the Trinity in Unity. 8vo. Lond. 
1718. 

Burgh, On the Divinity of Christ against Lindsay. 8vo. Dubl. 
1779. 

Bullii Opera, ed. Grabe. Fol. Lond. 1721. 
Bisterfeld, De Uno Deo, Patre> Filio, et Spiritu Sancto. 4to. 
Amstel. 1659. 

Dr. Berriman's Historical Account of the Controversies con- 
cerning the Trinity. 8vo. Lond. 1725. 

Dr. Clarke's Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity. 8vo. Lond. 
1732. 

Dr. Cudworth's Intellectual System, lib. i. cap. iv. ed. 2da. 
2 vol. 4to. Lond. 1743. 



Xll 



Archdeacon Daubeny's Charge, in June, 1815. 
Dr» Doddridge's Lectures, Part VII. ed. Kippis. 2 vol. 8vo. 
Lond. 1794. 

Doederleinii Institutio Theologi Christiani. 2 vol. 8vo. Norimb. 
etAltorf. 1791. 

Dr. Graves' Scriptural Proofs of the Trinity. 8vo. Lond. 
1819. 

Guyse's Sermons on the Person of Christ. 8vo. Glasgow. 1790. 

Dr. Hales's New Analysis of Chronology. 4 vols. 4to. Lond. 
1809—12. 

— Dissertations on the Prophecies. 8vo. Lond. 1808. 

— Faith in the Holy Trinity the Doctrine of the 

Gospel. 2 vol. 8vo. Lond. 1818. 
Bishop Horsley's Tracts in Controversy. 8vo. Dundee. 1812. 
Bishop Huntingford's Thoughts on the Trinity. 8vo. Lond. 

1804. 

Hawtrey's 0eav$pw7ro?, or an Appeal to the New Testament in 
Proof of the Divinity of the Son of God. 8vo. Lond. 
1794. 

Jones's Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity. 12mo. Lond. 1802. 
Dr. Jamieson's Vindication of the Doctrine concerning the Deity 
of Christ. 2 vol. 8vo. Edinburgh. 1794. 

Bishop Kidder's Demonstration of the Messias. Fol. Lond. 
1726. 

Law's Defence of the Divinity of our Saviour. 8vo. Preston. 
1816. 

Leslie's Socinian Controversy discussed, in vol. i. of his Works. 

Fol. Lond. 1721. 
Dr. Laurence's Dissertation on the Logos of St. John. 8vo. 

Oxford. 1808. , 



xiii 

Dr. Laurence's Remarks on Griesbach's Classification of MSS. 
Oxford. 1814. 

— Critical Reflections on the Unitarian Version. 

8vo. Oxford. 1811. 

Dr. Mant's Academical Discourses. 8vo. Oxford. 1816. 
Murray's Clear Display of the Trinity. 8vo. ed.2da. Lond. 
1815. 

Dr. Magee's Discourses on Atonement. 3 vol. 8vo. Lond. 
1812—16. 

Maurice's Oriental Trinities, in vol. iv. of his Indian Anti- 
quities. Lond. 1794. 

Nares' Remarks on the Unitarian Version. 8vo. Lond. 1810. 
Nolan's Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate. 8vo. 
Lond. L815 

Oxlee's Christian Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation con- 
sidered and maintained on the Principles of Judaism. 8vo. 
Lond. 1815. 

Bishop Pearson, On the Creed. 2 vol. 8vo. Oxford. 1797. 

Dr. Randolph's Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity. 

Oxford. 1753-54. 
Mr. F. Randolph's Revision of Socinian Arguments. 8vo. 

Bath. 1792. 

Rennell's Animadversions on the Unitarian Translation. 8vo. 
Lond. 1811. 

Dr. Scott's Christian Life. 5 vol. Lond. V. D. 

Bishop Stillingfleet's Vindication of the Trinity in the iiid vol. 

of his Works. Fol. Lond. 1710. 
Dr. Pye Smith's Scripture Testimony to the Messiah. 8vo. 

Lond. 1818. 



xiv 

Dr. Sherlock's Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity. 

4to. Lond. 1690. 
— Present State of the Socinian Controversy. 

4to. Lond. 1698. 
Simpson's Plea for the Deity of Jesus. 8vo. Lond. 1812. 
Serle's Horae Solitariae. 2 vol. 8vo. Glasgow. 1813. 

Bishop Tomline's Christian Theology, 2 vol. 8vo. Lond. 1799. 
H.Taylor's Apology of Ben Mordecai. 2 vol. 8vo. Lond. 1784. 
Bishop Tillotson's Four Sermons on the Divinity of our Lord, 
in vol. i. of his works. Fol. Lond. 1752. 

Veysie's Preservative against Unitarianism. 8vo. 

Defence of the Preservative. 12mo. Exeter. 1810. 

Vaiilant's Scripture compared with Scripture in Proof of the 
Trinity. 8vo. Lond. 1819. 

Dr. Waterland's Vindication of Christ's Divinity, or a Defence 

of Queries. 8vo. Cambr. 1721. 
. Second Vindication, or a Second Defence of 

Queries. 8vo. Lond. 1723. 
„ . Sermons at Lady Moyer's on the Divinity of 

Christ. 8vo, Cambr. 1720. 
— Importance of the Doctrine of the Trinity. 

8vo. Cambr. 1800. 
Critical History of the Athanasian Creed. 4to. 

Cambr. 1724. 
Dr. Whittaker's Origin of Arianism. 8vo. Lond. 1791. 
Wilson's Method of explaining the New Testament by the early 

Opinions of Jews and Christians concerning Christ. 8vo. 

Cambr. 1797. 

Wardlaw's Discourses on the Socinian Controversy. 8vo. Lond. 
1815. 

- — Unitarianism incapable of Vindication. 8vo. Lond. 

1816. 



CONTENTS. 



CHAP. PAGE 

I. General Remarks — Importance of the 

Doctrine of the Trinity 1 

II. Express Testimonies to the Divinity of 

Jesus Christ 16 

III. Indirect Testimonies to the Divinity of 

Jesus Christ 80 

IV. Divine Titles applied to Christ, a Proof 

of his Divinity 170 

V. Divine Attributes ascribed to Christ, a 

Proof of his Divinity 230 

VI. Creation a Proof of Christ's Divinity .. 314 
VII. Divine Worship directed to Christ, a 

Proof of his Divinity 337 

VIII. The Sonship of Christ, a Proof of his 

Divinity 379 

IX. Christ's Subordination to the Father 436 
Conclusion 445 



ERRATA. 



Page 115 line 4 from bottom, for enallogy read enallage 

133 — 11 read (Judg. iii. 9. 15. in the Hebrew) within a paren- 
thesis 

162 — 9 for the divinity read the co-equal divinity 
ibid. — in the note, last line, for sect. Iii. read sect. li. 
178 — 8 for Kvgiov not ©eotJ read rov Kugioy x&i ©sou 
196 — - 4 for Cyrennius read Cyril 

203 — 7 from bottom, in note, for lxxxviii. 6. read lxxxvi. 8. 
251 — 2 from bottom, for Numb. i. 26. read Numb. i. 16. 
287 — 6 from bottom, in note, read our Lord as man was not 
in heaven 

302 — 3 for as his death read yet as his death 
315 — 1 read by which those which have lost 
330 — 17 dele all, at the beginning, and read shall perish, but 
thou remainest ; and they all shall 



THE 

SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES 

TO THE 

DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST. 



CHAPTER I. 



GENERAL REMARKS — IMPORTANCE OF THE DOCTRINE 
OF THE TRINITY. 



The divine Unity is the first and fundamental prin- 
ciple of revealed religion. Both the Jewish and 
Christian Scriptures proclaim, with equal clearness 
and force, the existence of one eternal, omnipotent, 
and immutable God. 

Yet, while we unequivocally own this sacred 
truth, and resolve to preserve it inviolate, we never- 
theless acknowledge a personal distinction in that 
Unity. We believe that in the Godhead are three 
Persons, each of whom is by himself God, fully 
possessed of the divine attributes ; at the same time 
so indissolubly connected, so strictly One Being, 
that, in the emphatical language of Bishop Horsley, 

B 



2 



General Remarks. [chap. i. 



se any individual thing, in the whole world of matter 
and of spirit,, presents but a faint shadow of their 
unity/' This sublime, but mysterious truth was 
revealed to the pious Israelite, though veiled in 
some degree of obscurity : but at the dawn of 
Christianity it was surrounded with heavenly splen- 
dour; and wherever a ray of Evangelic light has 
penetrated, the incense of adoration has been of- 
fered to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. In every 
period of the Christian Church, even in the ages of 
gloomy superstition by which she was overwhelmed, 
and while she lay buried in the darkness of barbaric 
ignorance, it has always formed the leading article 
of faith ; and worshipping millions still present the 
tribute of prayer and praise to the Triune God. 

This universal belief in the Holy Trinity, from 
the first rise of Christianity to the present day, is 
a strong presumptive argument in favour of the 
doctrine itself*. How shall we account for this 
general consent of the Church, in every period of 
its existence, unless it was taught by our Lord and 
his immediate followers ? To suppose that the 
great mass of believers in all ages have been in an 
error on the most essential point, is scarcely com- 
patible with the perfection of the Sacred Writings 
as a Rule of Faith. If the doctrine of the Trinity 
be not expressly delivered in the inspired Volume, 
it will follow, either that the writings of the Apostles 
have been inefficient in the promulgation of truth, 

* White's Bampton Led. Notes, p. 35, et seq. Lond. 1811. 
Dean Vincent, in ManVs Com, Pr. Book, p. 58. 



chap, i.] General Remarks. 3 



or that nearly the whole Christian world have agreed 
in the blasphemy of ascribing divinity to a mere 
man, and in the idolatry of worshipping a creature 
together with the immaculate Creator. As the 
former inference is derogatory to the Bible, and 
the latter a libel upon the common sense of mankind, 
we must conclude that so universal a consent in the 
belief of the Trinity has arisen from its being plainly 
discovered in the Scriptures. And truly it is there 
revealed in terms too express for any artifice to 
evade, and is supported by reasons too powerful 
for Sabellian ingenuity to invalidate. The divine 
oracles teach, that there is but one living and 
true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or 
passions, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness, 
the maker and preserver of all things both 
visible and invisible; and in the unity of this 
Godhead there are three Persons of one sub- 
stance, power, and eternity, the Father, the Son, 
and the Holy Ghost, 

There is no contradiction in this account of the 
Catholic faith in the ever-blessed Trinity. That 
one should be three, and three one, exactly in the 
same sense, is impossible, because it implies a con- 
tradiction ; but the Divine Being may be three in 
one respect, and one in another. There may be a 
three-fold mode of subsistence in the divine Essence : 
this is no absurdity, no contradiction ; but may be 
an eternal and immutable truth. That it is abstruse 
and mysterious is readily admitted ; but so is every 
thing appertaining to the Supreme Being : his 

b2 



4 General Remarks. [chap. i. 

nature is indescribable, his attributes incomprehen- 
sible, his operations unsearchable # . 

It is undoubtedly true that the mind cannot be- 
lieve what it understands not at all, for where there 
is no idea, there can be no assent ; but it must 
often believe what it can only obscurely and im- 
perfectly understand. He who believes in a God, 
must assent to the divine attributes, self-existence, 
eternity, ubiquity, prescience, and the like, which 
he can comprehend as little as the Trinity in Unity. 
In professing a belief that Father, Son, and Holy 
Ghost, are personally distinct, yet so ineffably united, 
as to be One God, our notions are not more defec- 
tive and obscure, than when we ascribe to him the 
inherent perfections of his nature. We clearly 
comprehend the general truth ; but the manner of 
existence of the three Persons in one Deity, and 
the minute circumstances of their union and dis- 
tinction are far above the grasp of finite under- 
standings. Men of philosophical and inquisitive 
minds have occasionally indulged in profound, ab- 
struse, and sometimes, it is to be feared, unhallowed 
speculations on these awful subjects ; but it is suf- 
ficient for the humble Christian to receive with 
unfeigned assent, and submissive reverence, this 
fundamental and intelligible truth, that the Father, 
the Son, and the Holy Ghost are all strictly divine 
and uncreated, and yet are not three Gods, but one 
God. 

* See the excellent remarks of Leslie, First Dialogue on the 
Soc. Controv. and Bishop Stillingfleet, Vindication, cap. 5 — 7. 



CHAP. I.] 



General Remarks. 



5 



If the doctrine of the Trinity, therefore, be 
mysterious, it is only what necessarily must be the 
case with every thing relating to the Deity. The 
fullest discovery that can be made of the nature of 
God must be imperfect, in consequence of the 
immensity of the object, the ambiguity of language, 
and the inadequacy of our conceptions. No dif- 
ficulties, then, short of a contradiction, can be 
allowed to constitute an objection to a doctrine 
claiming divine original. On the contrary, it should 
rather seem, that to involve difficulties must be the 
characteristic of a divine revelation, since it must 
treat of the existence and attributes, the ways and 
works of Deity, all which the feeble intellect of 
man can but imperfectly apprehend *. 

It has frequently been matter of regret that 
divines have been compelled, in explaining and 
enforcing the doctrine of the Trinity, to employ 
terms of human invention. It is certainly to be 
lamented that it should ever have become requisite 
to deviate from the plain apostolical expressions : 
but when these expressions were tortured to suit 
every paradoxical opinion, and when certain over- 
curious, or ill-regulated minds fell into erroneous 
notions and dangerous heresies, it became necessary 
to deliver the orthodox faith in a precise and definite 
phraseology, peculiarly opposed to the prevailing 
errors. For the same reasons, modern theologians 

* Bishop Butler, Analogy, P. 2. cap. 4. That the difficulties 
attending a revelation form no valid objection, is proved to 
demonstration in this profound work. See also the masterly 
Tracts on Scripture Mysteries in the Enchiridion Theologicum. 



6 



General Remarks. [chap. i. 



have recourse to similar terms ; not for the purpose 
of enlarging our ideas, or of explaining* that which 
is in its nature incomprehensible, but of securing 
the stupendous truth concerning the Trinity in Unity. 

The word ce Trinity" does not occur in the in- 
spired Writings ; but we find it used in the second 
century to express the sacred Three, who constitute 
the God of Christians. Theophilus of Antioch, about 
the year 180, is the first writer extant who expressly 
gives them the name of Trinity. This term occurs 
indeed in the Expositio Fidei, among the works of 
Justin Martyr : but it probably is not the genuine 
production of that learned Father. Lucian also, a 
Pagan writer of the same age, makes use of it in 
his dialogue entitled Philopatris. In the successive 
disputes raised by Praxeas, Noetus, and Sabellius, 
it by degrees grew into common use to express the 
Plurality of Persons in one divine Essence *. 

The term cc Person" is applied to denote each of 
the three Subsistencies in the Divine Nature. Of 
its precise import in this application, it is impossible 
to form any adequate conception ; but it is a word 
well adapted to express the distinction between the 
Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, without 
dividing the substance. In its adoption, moreover, 
we have the authority of Scripture ; for the Son of 
God is said by St. Paul, to be " the express image of 
his Father's person f," which intimates a distinction 

* Suicer, Thesaur, torn. ii. p. 1287. Dr, Waterland, Second 
Defence, Qu. 23. 
t Heb. i. 3. 



chap. i.J General Remarks. 



7 



between the Father and the Son ; but as they are 
one in essence, it can only be a distinction in per- 
sonal properties. The word Hypostasis, used by 
the Apostle in this passage, was understood by the 
ancient Fathers to signify a person ; and hence was 
applied by them to express the three Persons or 
Subsistencies which co-exist in one undivided God- 
head # . 

Were men content with the plain primitive faith 
in its native simplicity, all subtil and critical terms 
might be avoided ; but when the main articles of 
our creed are mistaken, perverted, or rejected, it is 
necessary to have recourse to them, in order to 
preserve the sanctuary of truth from violation. It 
is sufficient for the defence of the terms employed 
for this purpose, provided they be determinate in 
meaning-, and appropriate in their application. 
Such technical terms have many advantages ; they 
introduce accuracy and precision into our ideas; 
and they express clearly and compendiously what 
must otherwise be communicated, with less dis- 

* vwoaTacnq was not always taken in this sense, but sometimes 
used indiscriminately for ova-icc. " Nonnunquam virirretats pro eo 
quod nos ovatav dicimus, et vice versa vox wa\» pro eo quod nos 
vwoo-recffhv appellamus, ab ipsis accepta fuit." Bulli Opera, 
p. 103. But though there might be some difference in the 
mode of expressing it, both the ante and post-Nicene Fathers 
held that there was only one eternal, immutable, uncreated 
Substance, which they named God, while they as universally 
maintained a three-fold distinction in that Substance. See 
Suicer, torn. ii. p. 1395. Waterland, Second Def. p. 449. 
et seq. Randolph, Find, P. 3. p. 102, et seq. 



8 Importance of the f CHAP - i« 

tinctness, by means of a circumlocution. In ad- 
hering to the phraseology of the early orthodox 
writers, we are not induced only by a reverence 
for antiquity, highly as its sanction is to be valued ; 
but because we conceive it to be admirably adapted 
to convey the uniform and indubitable sense of 
Scripture. 

The indispensable importance of the doctrine of 
the Trinity is evident from the circumstance, that it 
is practical, and closely connected with the prin- 
ciples of the Christian life. If the Son and Holy 
Ghost are essentially God, it obviously follows that 
they will stand in a relation to us, very different 
from what they would do upon the Unitarian hypo- 
thesis, and that other obligations of duty wiH hence 
arise. The Son and Holy Ghost must evidently be 
the objects of religious regard; and each having 
his proper office in the dispensation of Providence, 
for the recovery and salvation of mankind, corres- 
ponding duties must be required from us *. 

The death of Christ, on the supposition of his 
simple humanity, can possess no greater efficacy 
than that of other virtuous and holy men ; for it is 
inconceivable how the blood of a creature should 
make a proper atonement for sin. Hence those 
who have denied the divinity of our Lord, have 
commonly rejected the notion of an expiatory 
sacrifice. Upon this doctrine, however, it depends, 
whether we are proudly and presumptuously to 



# Bishop Butler, Analogy, P. 2. cap. 1. 



chap, i.] Doctrine of the Trinity. 9 

expect future felicity by our own works and deserv- 
ings ; or are humbly to hope, that, through the 
atonement of a Redeemer, our faith manifested by 
sincere, though imperfect endeavours, will be ac- 
cepted at the tribunal of Heaven. 

According to the opinion that is formed of the 
person and nature of our Redeemer, will be the 
degree of homage rendered to him from those who 
profess his religion. If, as the Unitarian fancies, 
he is to be regarded as a mere man, he may be 
esteemed for his benevolence, admired as a great 
and virtuous character, and obeyed as an inspired 
teacher ; but no reverence should be paid him be- 
yond that to which humanity is entitled. If, on the 
Arian scheme, he is to be considered as in nature 
inferior to the Father, however exalted, and how- 
ever high his rank among the celestial hierarchy, 
he must still be looked upon as a created being, and 
not the object of religious worship. But if he be, 
as we believe, really and essentially God, with 
respect to his superior nature, then is he to be 
magnified and adored by every order of created 
intelligences. 

A belief in the divinity and personality of the 
Holy Ghost is necessary to assure us of spiritual 
and sanctifying aid in the great business of salva- 
tion. The communication of divine grace, is every 
where in Scripture attributed to the Holy Spirit, as 
his peculiar office in the economy of man's salvation. 
The denial of his personality must make a thorough 
change in the doctrine of divine grace and assist- 



10 Importance of the [chap. i. 

ance. The Spirit is the principle of immortality in 
us; it sublimes and spiritualizes our souls; to reject 
his divinity therefore, is to deny the doctrine of 
sanctifi cation through his influence. 

Nor has the doctrine of the Trinity an unim- 
portant influence upon the affections of the heart. 
The knowledge that Christ was God manifest in 
the flesh, is calculated to banish despondence, to 
revive the dying embers of hope, and to inspire 
the most elevated devotion. With what gladness 
do those oppressed with the burden of their sins, 
listen to the doctrine of an atonement ? With what 
unshaken confidence do they repose in Him who is 
" the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever?" And 
with what transports of joy do they accept the 
gracious tenders of pardon from their Saviour and 
their God ? The purest flame of love, the most 
enlivening hopes, and the most exalted piety, dilate 
the bosom, when we behold Jesus, who as man 
cannot refuse his sympathy, who as God is infinite 
in kindness, and omnipotent to save. Every devout 
affection of the heart, every ennobling sentiment of 
the soul, is awakened by the immensity of the Three 
whom we worship ; and, as the soul rises on thoughts 
so elevated, as the heart swells with the rapture of 
devotion, we fall prostrate before the throne of 
redeeming mercy, fearing while we love, and 
trembling while we adore. Kindling into pious 
extasy, the soul bounds beyond the limits of this 
terrestrial scene, and anticipates the hour, when 
expectation shall be absorbed in fruition, when it 



chap, i.] Doctrine of the Trinity. 1 1 

shall be called to mingle with the delighted cheru- 
bim, who join in harmonic chorus, saying, e< Bless- 
ing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto 
Him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the 
Lamb for ever and ever V 

Compared with this inspiring devotion, how cold 
and comfortless is the Unitarian creed ? It has 
nothing to interest the affections ; nothing to warm 
or elevate ; while the fervour of piety is chilled by 
the dreary and ungenial frost of indifference. The 
beams of the sun of righteousness, which are alone 
able to melt and thaw the icy heart, never brighten 
the waste and sullen regions of Unitarianism. What 
pious or exalted sentiment can be excited by be- 
lieving in ff mere humanity ?" What dependence 
can be placed upon the protection, what hope upon 
the compassion of Jesus, if he partake not of the 
divine nature ? " If the Redeemer were not omni- 
ff present, and omniscient, could we be certain that 
ct he always hears our prayers, and knows the source 
ee and remedy of all our miseries ? If he were not 
" all-merciful, could we be certain he must always 
" be willing to pardon and relieve us ? If he were 
es not all-powerful, could we be sure that he must 
<c always be able to support and strengthen, to 
SS enlighten and direct us ? Of any being less than 
" God, we might suspect that his purposes might 
" waver, his promises fail, his existence itself per- 
tc haps terminate ; for of every created being, the 
" existence must be dependent and terminable 



* Dr. Graves, Scriptural Proofs of the Trinity, p. 141. 



12 Importance of the [chap. i. 

The doctrine of the Trinity, then, is not a mere 
matter of curiosity, or of speculative inquiry. Our 
religion is built upon it ; for the whole code of reve- 
lation was apparently designed to manifest the three 
Persons, but one God, engaged in the work of man's 
redemption, in the several relations of Creator, 
Redeemer, and Sanctifier. " While we consider 
f( the doctrine of the Trinity," says Dr. Waterland, 
ee as interwoven with the very frame and texture of 
te the Christian religion, it appears to me natural to 
" conceive, that the whole scheme and economy 
" of man's redemption was laid with a principal 
ee view to it, in order to bring mankind gradually 
ce into an acquaintance with the three divine Per- 
" sons, one God blessed for ever. I would speak 
<e with all due modesty, caution, and reverence, as 
cc becomes us always in what concerns the unsearch- 
ce able counsels of heaven : but I say, there appears 
ff to me none so natural, or so probable an account 
<€ of the divine dispensations, from first to last, as 
" what 1 have just mentioned ; namely, that such a 
i€ redemption was provided, such an expiation for 
" sins required, such a method of sanctification ap- 
te pointed, and then revealed, that so men might 
ff know that there are three divine Persons, might 
ff be apprized how infinitely the world is obliged to 
(e them, and might accordingly be both instructed 
" and inclined to love, honour, and adore them here, 
" because that must be a considerable part of their 
" employment and happiness hereafter 



* Importance of the Doctrine of the Trinity, cap. 2. 



chap. i. J Doctrine of the Trinity. 13 

Of such transcendant importance is the doctrine 
of the Trinity in Unity. It is the basis of Chris- 
tianity ; and with it all the grand and peculiar 
doctrines must stand or fall. If it have no foun- 
dation in Scripture, the great scheme of our redemp- 
tion by Jesus Christ, and of our sanctification by 
the Spirit, becomes an idle figment ; and iu wor- 
shipping the Son and Holy Ghost, we are guilty of 
polytheistic idolatry. If, on the contrary, it be true, 
confirmed and ratified by the infallible words of 
inspiration, the opposers of it, whether of the Arian 
or Socinian schools, are corrupters of the faith, and 
bold blasphemers of our God *. 

In this age, it is true, the necessity of a right 
faith is but lightly regarded. A too general senti- 
ment obtains, that it is of little consequence what a 
man believes, provided he preserve the external 
decencies of morality. There is, however, an in- 
separable connection between faith and practice ; 
and error in the one seldom fails to be attended 
with obliquities in the other. From such latitu- 
dinarian principles it proceeds, that a real indif- 
ference to the faith of Christ is gaining ground, 
under the assumed garb of liberality. Hence eccle- 
siastical discipline is relaxed ; schism is treated with 
lenity, heterodoxy with indulgence ; and the unquiet 
spirit that disdains to follow the current of belief, 

* The high importance of the doctrine of the Trinity is 
evinced with great force of reasoning by Dr. Waterland hi his 
work on this subject, and by Bishop Bull in his Judicium 
Eccksice Catholkce. 



14 



Importance of the 



[chap. i. 



which has been flowing in one salutary stream for 
eighteen centuries, is endured, perhaps admired and 
applauded. Yet it seems the fair deduction of 
reason, that, if the Almighty has favoured us with 
a revelation, it should be kept cc whole and unde- 
fined;" and that those who reject or corrupt the 
truths delivered in it, will experience the severity of 
the divine vengeance. This conclusion is confirmed 
by our blessed Lord, who declares, " He that be- 
lieveth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that 
believeth not shall be damned*." The form of 

* Mark xvi. 16. Many critics render the last clause, " he 
that believeth not shall be condemned," and hcctcck^vu, certainly, 
may be so translated ; but it makes little difference in the sense 
of the passage. " Shall be condemned" is opposed to " shall 
be saved," which cannot mean less than being put into a salvable 
state, being admitted to the Gospel privileges, a state, if perse- 
vered in, ending in everlasting salvation. " He that believeth not 
shall be condemned," is the reverse ; and therefore means that 
the unbeliever shall not be put into a salvable state, shall not 
be admitted to the Gospel privileges, a state, if persevered in, 
ending in everlasting perdition. This must be admitted even 
on the lowest interpretation of au%(mca ; but when we consider 
the awful solemnity of the declaration, pronounced immediately 
before his ascension, it seems unreasonable to doubt, that the 
expression " shall be saved" denotes eternal salvation, and 
" shall be condemned," exclusion from this salvation. Compare 
John iii. 36. This interpretation is supported by Grotius, 
Rosenmuller, Schleusner, Hammond, Doddridge, Waterland, 
(Hist, of the Athanas. Creed, cap. 10. p. 134.) Hales, {Faith in 
the Trinity, vol. ii. p. 262.) and agrees with the conclusions of 
reason. If God has covenanted to bestow eternal life upon 
the performance of certain conditions, one of which is faith, 
wilful and obstinate unbelief must certainly exclude a person 



chap. i.J Doctrine of the Trinity . 15 

baptism prescribed by our Redeemer, was in the 
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
Holy Ghost : this holy sacrament, therefore, and 
faith in the adorable Trinity, are here made an 
essential condition of salvation, which " he that 
believeth not shall be damned." We may cha- 
ritably hope that this appalling sentence will admit 
some limitations. Infinite Wisdom will doubtless 
make proper allowances for the weakness of the 
human mind, and the prejudices of early education, 
for invincible ignorance and involuntary error. As 
the discrimination, however, can only be made at 
the tribunal of eternal justice ; let not man pre- 
sumptuously exalt himself into the seat of judgment, 
and pass sentence upon those whom he deems erring 
brethren ; to their own Master they stand or fall. 
Yet let us not, in a spirit of false liberality, " handle 
the word of God deceitfully j" the declaration of our 
Lord is infallible, and from it we are constrained to 
infer, that those who reject any of the fundamental 
articles of faith, wilfully and presumptuously, with- 
out due inquiry and full conviction, must be guilty 
of a daring offence, and " without doubt shall perish 
everlastingly. 5 ' 

from all the privileges of that covenant, and consequently from 
eternal life. As the Scriptures contain several intimations 
that the benefit of Christ's death will be extended to those who 
never heard of his name, this declaration of our Lord cannot 
apply to virtuous heathens. — From what has been said, it will 
appear that I do not quite agree with Maltby's remarks on this 
text in his Illustrations of the Truth of the Christian Religion, 
p. 265. second edit. 



CHAPTER II. 



EXPRESS TESTIMONIES TO THE DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST. 



I. John i. 1 — 3. s{ In the beginning was the 
Word, and the Word was with God, and the 
Word was God. The same was in the beginning 
with God. All things were made by him ; and 
without him was not any thing made that was made." 
— In a discussion of the question respecting the 
divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, the beginning of 
St. John's Gospel, from its pre-eminent importance, 
demands our first attention. Its testimony in sup- 
port of that transcendant doctrine is, in the opinion 
of Trinitarians, too clear and unequivocal to be 
disputed or rejected by an unprejudiced under- 
standing. 

Whence the Evangelist borrowed the term Logos, 
is a very arduous inquiry *, and has given birth to 
a variety of conjectures, the chief of which are the 
following : First, That it is taken from the Chaldee 
Paraphrases, where we find the phrase *H fcHMtt 
memra dadonai, " the word of the Lord," which 

* The learned Dr. Hales translates Aoyo? in John i. 1. and the 
Hebrew corresponding with it, by " the Oracle f which 
seems an unauthorized departure from the usual rendering. 



chap, ii.] Express Testimonies, $c, 17 

has been conjectured to indicate the Hypostatical 
Word, or the second Person in the blessed Trinity, 
and which the Jews of St. John's day have been 
supposed so to have understood and applied. 
Secondly, That St. John borrowed the term from 
the Alexandrian or Platonical philosophy. Thirdly, 
That it was taken from the system of the Gnostics, 
who, embracing Christianity, yet retaining the prin- 
ciples of the Eastern philosophy, employed it to 
denote a divine emanation of exalted rank and 
dignity. Fourthly, That it was suggested to the 
mind of the Apostle by Solomon's description of 
Wisdom in the eighth chapter of Proverbs, or by 
an expression in the thirty-third Psalm. Fifthly, 
That the term is used metonymically to signify 
teacher, and particularly applicable to the Messiah, 
as the great Teacher of mankind. Sixthly, That 
in the Hebrew Scriptures, dahar Jehovah *, " the 
Word of Jehovah," is frequently used in a personal 
sense to denote the Hypostatic Word, who appeared 
to the patriarchs and prophets ; and as this phrase 
is repeatedly rendered in the Septuagint version 
*6yog Kvgiov, in cases of undoubted personality, St. 
John adopted it as the well known title of the Son 
in the Old Testament f . 

* mn> i:n. 

f On the origin of the term Logos, see Wolf, Curce Philol. 
in Joh. i. 1. Allix, Judgment of ike Jewish Church, cap. 2. 
and 7. Dr. Scott, Christian Life, vol. v. p. 167, et seq. 
Witsius, Miscel. Sac. vol. ii. Exercit. 3. Wolf, Bibliotheca 
Hebrtea, vol. ii. p. 1185—1189. Kuindel, Proleg. § 7. in Joh. 

c 



18 Express Testimonies to the [chap. ii. 

Whatever supposition is admitted in regard to the 
origin of the tenn Logos, the principal point to be 
decided is, whether St. John designates by it an 
attribute, or a real subsisting person. One or other 
it must mean, as is allowed on all sides : now, if it 
be proved to be wholly inapplicable in the sense of 
a divine attribute, it is evident that it must denote a 
divine person. And that an attribute was not in- 
tended by the word Logos is perfectly clear from 
the following considerations. 

1st. To establish his explanation of the term, the 
Unitarian translates it wisdom or reason. But in 
all the other passages of St. John's Gospel, in which 
it occurs, amounting to thirty-four, it never has this 
sense. If, then, we make St. John his own inter- 
preter, the Unitarian explication of the term, and 
the whole argument depending upon that explica- 
tion, must be alike rejected. — Besides, the import 
of Greek words used by the writers of the New 
Testament, is often influenced by corresponding 
ones in their vernacular tongue ; it is therefore 
proper to inquire whether this be the case in the 
present instance. But the corresponding expres- 
sions, dabar *, milla f, memra £, and pithgama §, 

Sandius, Dissertatio w§£ rov Aoyov. Michaelis, Introduct. to the 
New Test, by Bishop Marsh, vol. iii. cap. 7. § 3. Dr. Hales, 
Dissertation IX. p. 320. and Faith in the Trinity, Lett. VI. 
and New Analysis, passim. Dr. Laurence's admirable Disser- 
tation on the Logos, from which I have largely borrowed. 
* im. + kVd. 



chap, ii.] Divinity of Jesus Christ 19 

in Hebrew, Chaldee, and Syriac, do not possess the 
signification of reason or wisdom; which is a strong 
philological argument against the Unitarian expo- 
sition. 

2dly. If the Evangelist meant to describe an 
attribute, it were superfluous to assert that it tc was 
in the beginning," and was " with God for it is 
absurd to suppose that God could ever have been 
without his attributes. The second verse also would, 
on that supposition, constitute an unmeaning tau- 
tology. Instead of asserting twice that the attribute 
wisdom or reason was in the beginning with God, 
a single declaration of this would appear super- 
fluous ; and we cannot suppose that the Apostle 
would repeat a self-evident truth with so much 
emphasis and solemnity. 

Sdly. In v. 6 — 10. the Evangelist affirms that 
John the Baptist was not the Light, but that the 
Logos was the Light, which implies a kind of 
parallel between them, by supposing the possibility 
of the same character being ascribed to both. 
" Between person and person, this may undoubtedly 
" be the case ; but what species of parallel can 
" exist between a man and an attribute ? Nor will 
" the difficulty be obviated by suggesting that wis- 
ec dom here means not the attribute itself, but him, 
" whom that attribute inspired, the man Jesus 
" Christ, because the name of our Saviour has not 
" yet b£en mentioned, because that rule of inter- 
" pretation must be inadmissible, which at one time 
" would explain the term Logos by an attribute, 

c2 



20 Express Testimonies to the [chap. ii. 

ce at another by a man, as best suits the convenience 
" of hypothesis, and because, if it be in this instance 
" conceived to indicate our Saviour, it must follow 
" that our Saviour created the world, (which the 
" Unitarian will by no means admit,) for the Logos, 
" who was that which John the Baptist was not, 
" the true Light, is expressly declared to have 
" made the world 

4thly. In v. 14. St. John says that the Logos 
6t was made flesh but how can an attribute be re- 
presented as becoming a real man, and a particular 
individual, without manifest absurdity? If it be 
supposed only to mean that the wisdom of God was 
illustriously displayed in the man Christ Jesus, the 
Apostle has used a singular and obscure mode of 
expression. Had he intended to affirm simply that 
a man appeared, eminently wise, would he have 
said, " The Logos was made flesh, and dwelt 
among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of 
the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and 
truth ?" Such a phraseology is certainly without a 
parallel ; and such an ambiguous manner of expres- 
sing a plain and simple truth, cannot, with any 
reason, be attributed to so perspicuous a writer as 
St. John f. 

5thly. The Word is represented as the <( only- 

* Dr. Laurence, Dissertation on the Logos, p. 48- 
t " Quis dixerit in loco quidem historico, rationem, srve 
sap lent i am et potentiam divinam factam esse hominem, et inter 
homines habitasse." Tittman, Meletem. Sac. in Evangel. 
Joannis, p. 26. Lips. 1816. 



chap, ii.] Divinity of Jesus Christ. 21 

begotten" of the Father, (v. 14.) which again is per- 
sonal. For if " begotten" may be a proper expres- 
sion concerning" an attribute, yet " only-begotten" 
is not, unless God has no more attributes than one. 

6thly. St. John does not say that the Word or 
Logos was 0H9j, a divine Word, which might be 
properly predicated of a quality, but 0g©f, God, 
thereby strongly denoting a real person. Besides 
it is not said that the Word was in God, as might 
be proper of an attribute, but with God, which is 
another personal character. 

7thly. St. John, in writing to the Jews, used 
such expressions as were familiar to them. When, 
therefore, he used the term Logos, it cannot be 
doubted that he used a term well understood by 
the Jews of those times in which he lived. Now 
they understood by the word Logos a real and 
proper Person, a living and intelligent Being : 
it is therefore in the highest degree probable that 
the Evangelist applied it in the same sense. The 
force of this argument rests upon the assump- 
tion that the ancient Jews did, actually annex 
the idea of a person to the term Logos. The 
proof of this position would require a discussion of 
some length, and must therefore be waved at pre- 
sent ; but that the Jews did attribute not only 
personality, but divinity likewise to the Logos, is 
established by the most satisfactory evidence, which 
the reader will find in Kidder's Demonstration of 
the Messias, P. 3. cap. 5. Allix's Judgment of the 
Ancient Jewish Church; Whittaker's Origin of 



22 Express Testimonies to the [chap. ii. 

Arianism ; Bryant's Sentiments of Philo Judceus ; 
Jamieson's Vindication of the Deity of Christ, 
lib. i. 

8thly. Bishop Horsley contends that the natural 
force of the pronoun ovros is (e this person and 
therefore that the second verse should be rendered, 
" This person was in the beginning with God." 
This is very probable ; but is not decisive, as ovros 
may be the demonstrative of any thing of which 
the Greek name is masculine. The utmost liberty 
of choice, however, which the context leaves, is 
between two expositions only : " This Person," or 
* This Word." If the latter be adopted, the second 
verse will be only a useless repetition of what had 
been before affirmed. Whereas in Bishop Hors- 
ley's view of it, it contains an explicit assertion of 
the personality of the Logos, which with great 
propriety and significance, precedes the mention of 
his agency in the next verse *. 

9thly. Several personal characters are ascribed to 
the Logos. Thus, (( all things were made by him 
" he was in the world/' which he had formed ; " he 
came unto his own, and his own received him not 
he gives the power of becoming the sons of God 
" to them that believe on his name ;" " no man 
hath seen God at any time ; the only-begotten Son, 
which is in the bosom of the Father, Ushos, he hath 
declared him ;" all which are ascriptions of true 
personality. 



# Bishop Horsley 's Tracts, p. 14. 116. 333. 



chap, ii.] Divinity of Jesus Christ. 23 

lOthly. The whole stream of Christian writers 
from the earliest period have understood the Logos 
of St. John in a personal sense, and have from 
thence inferred the eternity and divinity of the Son. 
Dr. Laurence likewise observes that in the Peshito, 
or first Syriac version, the translator renders Logos 
by Meltho * which being a feminine is elsewhere 
uniformly joined to a pronoun and verb of the 
same gender, but which in this particular instance 
is united to a pronoun and verb of a masculine ter- 
mination. Thus we have a decisive testimony to 
the personality of the Logos in a version of very 
great authority, and made probably in the aposto- 
lical age, but at any rate the most ancient of any in 
existence. 

For these reasons we may conclude that an attri- 
bute was not intended by the term Logos, in the 
beginning of St. John's Gospel, and consequently 
that it must denote a real person. Now there can 
be little doubt that the person intended was Jesus 
Christ. Every part of this lofty description is per- 
fectly suitable to him and to no other. John the 
Baptist declares, " This (i. e. the Word) was he of 
whom I spake, he that cometh after me is preferred 
before me : for he was before me f (v. 15.) and " whose 
shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose (v. 27.) 
but from the other Evangelists we learn that it way 
Christ, to whom the Baptist gave this testimony f . 
When it is likewise added that " the Word was 

t Matt. iii. 11. Mark i. 7. Luke iii. 16. 



24 Express Testimonies to the [chap, ih 

made flesh, and dwelt among- us, and we beheld his 
glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the 
Father, full of grace and truth," (v. 14.) we can 
apply the language only to the Saviour of the 
world. 

This conclusion is strengthened by the circum- 
stance, that Logos or Word is an appellation of 
Christ used by St. John and other inspired writers. 
St. John thus begins his first Epistle, " That which 
was from the beginning, which we have heard, 
which we have seen with our eyes, which we have 
looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the 
W ord of life," viz. the really living Word. Also 
in ch. v. 7. if we admit the genuineness of that 
verse; but this name is undoubtedly given him in 
Rev. xix. 13. The same appellation occurs Luke 
i. 2. iv. 36. and perhaps Heb. iv. \% 13. xi. 3. 
2 Pet. iii. 5* 

Since the Evangelist actually describes our Sa- 
viour under the title Logos or Word, who he affirms 
was God, it remains to be shewn that he is not 
characterized as an inferior God, but really and 
essentially God, possessed of the divine attributes 
and perfections : And, 

1st. The appellation Logos, from whatever 
source derived, indicates a super-human being. 
Had the Evangelist designed to inform his readers 
that Jesus Christ was only a man divinely commis- 
sioned to instruct his fellow-creatures in matters of 

* See the Lex. of Schleusner and Parkhurst, and Bishop 
Burgess's Bible and Nothing but the Bible, p. 124. 



chap, ii.] Divinity of Jesus Christ. 25 

religion, would he have denominated him by such a 
title as Logos ? Would he not rather have called 
him Doctor, Teacher, or the like * ? Such an un- 
common appellation, in a plain historical narrative, 
imports something extraordinary in the person and 
character of him to whom it is applied. 

2dly. If St. John had not designed to represent 
the Word as truly God, it is very improbable that 
he would have denominated him God, without guard 
or caution. Had he meant it in a lower sense, it 
is likely he would have inserted some qualifying 
clause to prevent the possibility of mistake ; which 
he is yet so far from doing, that he adds some cir- 
cumstances tending to convince us that he used the 
word in the strictest sense. 

3dly. The eternity of the Word is implied in the 
very first expression, " in the beginning was the 
Word." It is not said that the Word in the begin - 
ing, iyiutro was made, but m he was : which must 
surely mean that he himself existed in the beginning, 
before any thing was made. When a creation is 
expressed, the proper word is used -rroivra. lywiTo ; 
and if the Apostle's meaning had been that Christ 
was a created being, he would doubtless have used 
language equally explicit, and plainly asserted that 
<f he was made/ If the Word, therefore, existed 

* " Quis virum aliquem insignem, missum ad homines docendi 
causa, appellaverit nomine plane inaudito \oyov, et non potius 
usurpaverit nomen usitatum £kWx«;\oi>, pyropo?, aut ejus generis 
alio ?" Tittman, Meletem. Sac. in Joh. p. 2G. 



26 Express Testimonies to the [chap. i*. 

before any thing was made, it is evident beyond all 
contradiction, that he must be strictly divine and 
uncreated. 

4thly. It is remarked by Grotius and others, that 
to be in the beginning is, in the Hebrew phra- 
seology, put for being from eternity ; and appeal has 
been made to Prov. viii. 23. Micah v. 2. Ps. lv. 19. 
Hab. i. 12. but this argument is perhaps doubtful, 
as the phrase cc in the beginning/' or " from the 
beginning," is sometimes put for the beginning of 
the Christian religion *. Admitting the phrase to 
be in itself ambiguous, yet in this application it 
denotes eternity. It is evidently derived from the 
first words of Genesis, where the same expression 
" in the beginning/' clearly denotes a priority to 
the work of creation ; consequently it is highly 
probable that the Evangelist received and applied 
it in the same sense. Nor in any other meaning 
can it be made to agree with the context. It 
cannot be intended to signify the beginning of the 
Gospel dispensation ; for it is subsequently said 
" all things were made by the Word/' which implies 
his having been anterior to all things made. Now, 
he who existed before any thing was created, is no 

* Acts xi. 15. John xv. 27. 1 John ii. 7. See Kuinoel in 
Joh. i. 1. The learned Tittinan, however, in his highly valuable 
Meletemata, or Commentary on St, John's Gospel, contends that 
*' in the beginning" denotes ab aterno, and produces some 
strong arguments ; Meletem p. 30. but I do not wish to insist 
upon what will admit of doubt. 



chap, ii.] Divinity -of Jesus Christ 27 

creature ; and if no creature, eternal ; consequently 
essentially God *. 

5thly. " The Word was with God/' is a phrase 
which, in its obvious signification, implies the per- 
sonal co-existence of the Word with the Father. 
It is quite superfluous to make this assertion con- 
cerning an attribute ; but it very appropriately 
expresses the most intimate union and familiarity 
between the Word and the Father, and is explained 
afterwards when it is asserted that he was cc the 
only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the 
Father," (v. 18.) To enforce therefore the union 
and co-existence of the Word and the Father, the 
Apostle repeats, with much emphasis, that " the 
same was in the beginning with God." 

6thly. " And the Word was God." An express 
and unequivocal ascription of divinity to the Logos. 
If Christ was not really God, how came St. John 
to speak of him in such high and mysterious terms; 
especially in the beginning of his Gospel, where 
we should expect a clear and explicit declaration of 
his nature and person ? It is irreconcileable with 
his perspicuity as a writer, and his infallibility as an 
Apostle, to suppose him using such ambiguous ex- 
pressions as are calculated to deceive and mislead 
mankind. We must therefore understand the apos- 
tolic language in its plain and literal sense ; and 

* iEternitatem hie strictissime inferri, cum b hoyos ante, quam 
quidquam fieret, extitisse dicatur, Interpretes tantum non omnes, 
si Socinianos exceperis rectissime monuerunt. Wolfii Cures in 
loc. 



38 Express Testimonies to the [chap. ii. 

own, with submissive reverence, the Deity of 
Christ. 

7thly. To this conclusion we are likewise im- 
pelled by other reasons. The word ce God" is in 
this verse applied to the Father unquestionably in 
the strict and proper sense, which makes it highly 
probable that it is applied to the Word in the same 
signification. It is not to be believed that any sen- 
sible writer would use the same word in one short 
sentence in two different meanings ; especially when 
a mistake would lead to errors of the most flagrant 
nature. The word " God" is likewise used eleven 
times in this very chapter to denote the real and 
true God ; nor throughout the whole New Testa- 
ment is it ever applied by an Apostle, literally 
and in the singular number, in any other sense. 
It would then be departing from the whole tenour 
of Scripture phraseology, and introducing so much 
ambiguity as to render the Apostle's language a 
perfect riddle, to suppose that he intended the term 
" God," in the passage before us, in any other than 
its strict and proper signification. 

8thly. This is confirmed by the third verse, which 
expressly attributes the creation of all things to the 
Word. Creation throughout the Scriptures is as- 
cribed to the supreme God alone ; but Christ is 
here declared to be the efficient Creator of all things ; 
therefore Christ is " the very and eternal God." 
Whence it follows that St. John can call him God 
in no other than its strict and absolute sense. 

It is objected, however, that the Father is here 



chap. ii. ] Divinity of Jesus Christ. 29 

called o Seos, but the Son simply Sfoj, without the 
article. But as Szo? is here the predicate of a pro- 
position,, it properly rejects the article. It is there- 
fore unreasonable to infer that $£o$ is here applied 
to the Logos in a lower sense, for the writer could 
not have written o S-w? without manifest absurdity # . 

These observations are abundantly sufficient to 
prove that the word " God" is not here to be under- 
stood in a subordinate sense ; and since it has been 
proved before that the Evangelist designates our 
Lord Jesus Christ by the appellation of Logos or 
Word, it follows, that he was el in the beginning," 
from all eternity, " with God;" and <c was God" in 
the strictest sense of the expression. The intro- 
troductory verses of St. John's Gospel, therefore, 
amount to a full demonstration of our Saviour's 
divinity f . 

II. Matt, xxviii. 19. C( Go ye, therefore, and 
teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of 
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
Ghost." — The custom of baptism obtained among 
the Jews long before our Saviour's appearance in 
the flesh. It was by baptism that they admitted 

* Bishop Middleton On the Gr. Art. p. 342. Tittman, 
Meletem. Sac. in Joh. p. 34. 

t " AoyZ suo Johannes omne id quod divinitati proprium 
est, existentiam ante mundi natales, ipsiusque mundi creationem 
tarn clare tribuit, ut ea, nisi quis cupiditati nimis indulserit, 
quomodo in dubium vocari, nedum negari queat, hand per- 
spiciam." Doederlein, Institutio Theologi Christiani, § 105. 
vol. i. 8vo. Norimb. 1791. 



30 Express Testimonies to the [chap, iv 



proselytes into their religion, entering them, by that 
means into covenant with the true God, in oppo- 
sition to all the gods of the heathens *. (€ To bap- 
tize into/' then, signifies to enlist oneself into the 
service of, and to vow all obedience and submission to 
him, with whom we thus enter into covenant f ; and 
when the person specified is God, it includes reli- 
gious worship and service. Our Lord, adopting 
the same practice, appointed baptism as the ordi- 
nance by which mankind were to be admitted into 
the Christian covenant : and the obvious import of 
this rite of initiation, this sacred form of baptizing 
" into the name of the Father, of the Son, and of 
the Holy Ghost/' is, that a person by baptism 
solemnly professes the faith, service, and worship of 
the Holy Trinity, the one true God. 

Baptism, then, is the sacred and religious rite, by 
which Christians are devoted and consecrated to the 
faith, and worship, and obedience of God. Since 
it is commanded to be performed in the name of 
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, without mentioning 
any superiority or difference, we conclude that these 

* Wall's Hist, of Infant Baptism, Introduct. Lightfoot's 
Works, vol. ii. p. 275. 

f " Ex omnibus his locis satis superque apparet, formulam : 
jSawTKrGJjj'ai eU ovopa, two? significare in universura : se nomini 
alicujus, doctrinae, institution^ auctoritati addictum profiteri 
per baptismi ritum." Schleusner, Lex. £a9TT»J«. 3. " Baptizari 
in aliquem est, baptismo obligari ad ejus cultum religiosum, et 
professionem religionis, ab eo institutae." Rcsenmiiller, Scholia 
in loc. See Doederlein, Institutio Theol. Christ. § 347, Ernesti, 
Opuscul. Theol. p. 569, 



chap. Divinity of Jesus Christ 31 

three persons are all of one substance, power, and 
eternity. " Baptizing into the name/' is probably 
a Hebraism for baptizing into the person named # ; 
but whatever it signifies, it is equally applied to the 
sacred Three ; and we are to be baptized into the 
name of the Father, and the name of the Son, and 
the name of the Holy Ghost. There is not the 
least hint of any essential distinction; and if Father, 
Son, and Holy Ghost be not one God, this form of 
baptism destroys the distinction between God and 
his creatures, and devotes us as intirely to creatures 
as to God. 

The terms Father and Son intimate a near rela- 
tion and alliance. It is not said in the name of 
God and his two faithful servants ; but ec in the 
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
Holy Ghost," without any other distinction than 
that of a personal relation, carrying* with it the idea 
of sameness of nature, as every father and son 
among men are of the same human nature. If, 
according to the Socinian scheme, Christ was a 
mere man, and the Holy Ghost a bare energy or 
quality, our Lord must have directed his followers 
to be baptized, i. e. to enter into a solemn covenant 

* " In verbis sU to ovo^a. non est argutandum, nam idem 
valent quod tU rlv KuTega, cum ovopa per Hebraismum centies 
redundet, ut in formula nio-rivav rl ovofia. rov Xgicrrov, Job. i. 12. 
ii. 25. pro tU rlv X^a-rov. Sic et 1 Cor. i. 13." Kuinoel, Comm. 
in loc. Vorstius, de Hebraismis, cap. 13. § 0. Glass, Phil. 
Sac. p. 110. ed. Datbe. But some are of a different opinion. 
Sherlock, Find, of the Trinity, p. 212. 



32 Express Testimonies to the [chap. h. 

with God, a man, and an attribute or operation ; 
which is not only absurd, but profane, since it 
places the creature upon an equality with the 
Creator. 

If divinity is not ascribed to the three Persons in 
this solemn form of words, the Gentile converts 
must have been led, almost unavoidably, into ido- 
latry. They had been taught to renounce their 
idols, and false gods, and to be baptized into ct the 
name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy 
Ghost." What could they infer from this sacred 
rite, but that instead of all the deities, whom they 
had before bowed down to, they were now to serve, 
worship, and adore Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, 
as the only true and living God ? In baptism they 
solemnly renounced their false gods, and devoted 
themselves to the faith and service of Father, Son, 
and Holy Ghost ; what then could they conclude 
from this opposition, but that these Three had 
really that divinity, which was only presumed with 
respect to the gods of the nations. ee I may add/' 
says Dr. Waterland, " that the form running in the 
" name, not names, of these Three, might insinuate 
" that the authority of all the Three was the same, 
" their power equal, their Persons undivided, and 
" their glory one 

The deity of the three Persons may be inferred 
from the end and nature of this initiatory ordinance. 
Baptism is the receiving men from a state of sin 



* Sermons at Lady Moyers. vm, p. 296. 



chap, ii.] Divinity of Jesus Christ. S3 

and wrath into a state of favour, by the remission 
of their sins, and their adoption to be the sons of 
God. These things can only be offered and assured 
to men in the name of the eternal God ; and there- 
fore since, without any intimation of inequality, 
they are all three set together as Persons in whose 
name this is to be done, they must all three be truly 
and really God. " Those who are baptized are 
" immediately translated from the curse of Adam to 
" the grace of Christ; the original guilt which they 
" brought into the world is mystically washed away ; 
" and they receive forgiveness of the actual sins 
<c which they may themselves have committed; they 
" become reconciled to God, partakers of the Holy 
c< Ghost, and heirs of eternal happiness ; they ac- 
" quire a new name, a new hope, a new faith, a 
" new rule of life How absurd is it to suppose 
that all this can be effected by being baptized into 
the name of a creature ? The promises of God 
can only be visibly signed and sealed in baptism by 
omnipotent power; and therefore we infer that 
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in whose name we 
are baptized, are three Persons in one undivided 
Godhead. 

This conclusion is strengthened by the authority 
of the primitive Fathers,, who unanimously declare, 
that the doctrine of the Trinity is clearly delivered 
in the baptismal form. As the Father, the Son, 
and the Holy Ghost are set forth without any dif- 

* Bishop Toraline's Refut. of Calvinism, cap. 2. See Bishop 
Burnet On Art. J. p. 38. 

D 



34 Express Testimonies to the [chap. ii. 

ference in authority and power,, as equally dispens- 
ing- the benefits of Christianity, as equally the 
objects of the faith required upon admission into 
the Church, the early Christians inferred that they 
were equally divine and uncreated. They never 
imagined baptism to run in the name of the Father 
only as God, and of the two other Persons as crea- 
tures ; but in the name of the three Persons, every 
one God, and all together the one God of Christians. 
Abundant evidence of this might easily be produced; 
but for the sake of brevity, I shall content myself 
with referring to the learned Wall, in his History 
of Infant Baptism, to Dr. Waterland's Eighth 
Sermon at Lady Moyer's Lecture, to Bishop Stil- 
lingfleet's Vindication of the Trinity, cap. 9. and to 
Simpson s Plea for the Deity of Christ, part 5, 
sect. 2* 

Although this interpretation seems to be in all 
respects consistent and accurate, some objections 
have been made to it, which it will be necessary to 
examine.— One objection is built upon our Lord's 
declaration, cs All power is given to me in heaven 
and in earth whence it is inferred, that the bap- 
tismal form cannot be justly considered as implying 
the equality of the Son with the Father. To this 
it may be answered that, according to the orthodox 
belief, Christ was truly man as well as truly God ; 
and this power might be given to him te because he 

* The reader may likewise consult Bingham, Antiq. of the 
Christian Church, lib. xi. cap. 3. Suicer, Thesaur. torn, u 
p. 636. torn. ii. p. 1294. Bishop Tomline On Art, L 



chap, ii.] Divinity of Jesus Christ. 35 

was the Son of Man," that is, because he had in his 
human nature exercised the office of a prophet, and 
afterwards of a priest, and was properly invested 
with all power that he might fulfil the office of King 
in his mediatorial government*. Secondly, This 
declaration might be made even with respect to his 
divine nature, as being God of God, as deriving his 
being and essence, by an eternal generation from 
the Father. Thirdly, The plenitude of power said 
to be given him is a proof of his divinity ; for " all 
power in heaven and in earth/' can neither be 
received nor exercised by any being less than God. 

Another objection is, that baptizing into, or into 
the name of Christ, is no proof of his divinity; 
otherwise Moses was God ; for all were baptized 
into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, (1 Cor. x. 2.) 
This is well answered by a learned writer. " The 
" cloud and the sea, through which the Israelites 
" passed, were, according to the Apostle, figures 
" and types of the Christian baptism, and Moses, 
" under whose conduct they passed, was in this 
" respect a type of Christ. Their passing through 
" the sea, or under the cloud, was no covenanting 
" rite, it carried with it no obligation to, or initia- 
** tion into, the service of Moses : they were in no 
" literal and proper sense baptized into Moses, but 
" only as he represented Christ. Nor are the 

* Ho^vi may be rendered " was given," as also in Matt, xi. 27. 
" all things, vetp&Sv, were delivered to me of my Father 
which imply our Lord's pre-existence. Hales, Faith in the 
Trinity, vol. ii. p. 238. Bishop Pearce in loe. 

d2 



36 Express Testimonies to the [chap. li. 

(i Israelites any where said to have been baptized 
" in the name of Moses; nor is the name of Moses 
C( ever joined with that of God in any of their rites 
" of worship, nor was Moses, or any of the pa- 
(( triarchs ever invoked together with God in any 
te act of adoration or benediction V To this 
forcible reasoning I add, that the divinity of Christ 
is not inferred from being baptized merely into his 
name ; but from being baptized into his name in 
union with the Father and the Holy Ghost. Had 
baptism been appointed in the name of Christ only, 
it might have been supposed to import the same as 
baptizing into Moses," Christ being the publisher 
of the Christian religion as Moses was of the 
Jewish. But as God the Father and the Holy 
Ghost are specified, it must mean entering into 
covenant with the Son, as God, together with the 
Father, and the Holy Ghost. It is incredible that 
the pious and humble Jesus should have joined his 
own name so closely and familiarly to that of the 
Father's, in one of the most solemn forms of wor- 
ship, if he had been no more than man. It cannot 
be believed, that as a moral teacher, he would have 
required faith in himself, as united with the Father 
and the Holy Ghost, if he had not been so united ; 
that is, if he had not been God f . Neither can it 
be supposed that God would suffer two creatures to 

* Dr. Randolph, Vindication, P. 2. p. 56. 
t Dr. Graves, Scriptural Proofs of the Trinity, Notes, p. 10, 
Dr. Waterland, Eighth Sermon at Lady Moyer's. 



chap, ii.] Divinity of Jesus Christ. 37 

be joined with him in the sacred ordinance by which 
we enter into the Christian covenant. 

It is also objected, that the commission in Matt, 
xxviii. 19. was not intended to constitute an inva- 
riable formula , for we have no instance on record 
in which they employed it, and we know that they 
actually baptized in the name of Jesus alone, as 
Acts ii. 38. viii. 16. x. 48. xix. 5. As we cannot 
suppose, however, that the Apostles omitted the 
name of the Father of all, it seems most probable 
that to be baptized in the name of the Lord, is 
merely a brief expression denoting the entire form 
prescribed by our Redeemer. In speaking of Hea- 
then converts at the present day, we should naturally 
say, they were baptized in the name, or into the 
faith of Christ, without meaning to imply that the 
name of the Father and of the Holy Ghost were 
omitted at the administration of the baptismal rite. 
The form was prescribed by our Saviour in so 
solemn a manner, immediately previous to his ascen- 
sion into heaven, that it is highly improbable the 
Apostles would deviate from his last and express 
command. It would have been little less than 
apostacy from the Christian faith to have commenced 
their ministry with a direct renunciation of the form 
of words in which their commission to proselyte 
and baptize the nations was delivered. And since 
it is wholly incredible that the Apostles should for- 
get or neglect their Master's positive injunction, 
those instances of baptism in the Acts, where the 
form is not given at length, were designed to avoid 



38 Express Testimonies to the [chap, ii. 

unnecessary repetition, without at all implying that 
the entire formula was not used. They briefly 
express that the converts were baptized into the 
faith and religion of Christ Jesus, not meaning that 
they were baptized into his Name exclusively, but 
that they solemnly assumed his religion by the bap- 
tism instituted by his authority. Besides,, the con- 
text of some of the passages above referred to, 
leads us to suppose, that baptism was administered 
in the name of the whole Trinity ; particularly 
Acts x. 48. xix. 5.* On this point it would not be 
right to overlook the attestation of antiquity, which 
is always entitled to very great respect. When the 
subject relates to a matter of fact, the testimony of 
the early Fathers must be allowed to be decisive ; 
and they universally declare it to have been the 
undeviating custom of the primitive Church to bap- 
tize in the name of the Holy Trinity f ; which cus- 
tom, it is reasonable to suppose, was derived from 
the apostolic practice. 

These objections, therefore, are not of sufficient 
magnitude to invalidate our conclusions drawn from 
the baptismal form. As our blessed Redeemer 
united in that sacred rite the Father, the Son, and 
the Holy Ghost, as equally the objects of Christian 
faith, it seems clearly to follow, that they must all 
partake the Divine Nature, and form one God, the 

* Dr. Graves, Scriptural Proofs of the Trinity, p. 15. et seq. 

t Bingham, Antiq. of the Christ. Churchy lib. xi. cap. 3. 
Wall, Hist, of Inf. Baptism ; and the authors cited in p. 34 of 
this work. 



chap, ii.] Divinity of Jesus Christ 39 

exclusive object of Christian adoration and obe- 
dience. 

III. Phil. ii. 6 — 9. " Who being in the form 
of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with 
God; but made himself of no reputation, and took 
upon him the form of a servant, and was made in 
the likeness of men : and being found in fashion as 
a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient 
unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore 
God also hath highly exalted him/' &c. — This pas- 
sage Bishop Bull declares is sufficient to refute 
every heresy against the person of our Lord Jesus 
Christ # : it will therefore require a minute and 
critical inquiry. For this purpose it will be proper 
to discuss the true import of the leading expressions, 
and afterwards to sum up the whole in a short para- 
phrase. 

ec Who being in the form of God/' oq h po£<pn 
©sou vTrctgxM. We do not meet with this phrase 
elsewhere in Scripture ; but that it denotes the 
essential divinity of Christ is evident from the fol- 
lowing considerations. First, From the application 
of the word fxo^v in v. 7. where " took upon him 
the form of a servant, fAOfi^u JsvAov, being made in 
the likeness of men," signifies that he was really a 
man in a low and mean condition ; and by parity of 

* " Qui unus locus, si recte expendatur, ad onmes hsereses 
adverus Jesu Christi Domini nostri Personam repellendas 
sufficit." Def. Fid. Nic. sect. 2. cap. 2. 



\ 



40 Express Testimonies to the [chap. ii. 

reason, u being in the form of God/' signifies being 
really God. Secondly, There are two passages 
which, as they greatly resemble the one before us, 
may serve to illustrate it. In Col. i. 15. our Lord 
is styled by the Apostle " the image slwv, of the in- 
visible God and in Heb. i. S. (S the express image, 
X*£** r i{9 °f n * s P erson >" which expressions clearly 
indicate identity of nature. (See § xn.) Now 
there is not much difference between pdppA ilxw, and 
X*p**Tvg, and therefore the Apostle might probably 
intend by " being in the form of God/' the very 
same thing as being ei the image of the invisible 
God/' and e< the express image of his person.;" 
that is, the identity of the Son's nature and essence 
with the Father's. Thirdly, vtt*px uv mav perhaps 
be rendered pre-existing * ; but if it only mean 
being or subsisting, yet in connexion with h juoppj? 
0foU, it can scarcely be understood otherwise, than as 
denoting essential divinity. He who actually subsists 
in the form of God, must surely be really God. 
Fourthly, The phrase " to be equal with God" is 
exegetical of the phrase " being in the form of 
God :" but " to be equal with God" implies essential 
divinity, as will be proved presently, and therefore 
the cc being in the form of God," must have the 
same import. Fifthly, The ancient Fathers, whose 
authority in a question like the present must be 
allowed to have great weight, generally understood 



* Dr. Middleton, Doet. of the Gr. Art. p. 538. 



chap, ii.] Divinity of Jesus Christ, 41 

the phrase e< being in the form of God" to mean the 
being really and truly God *. 

To this it is objected, that poppy denotes only 
external form, or outward appearance, as Mark 
xvi. 12. where it is said our Saviour appeared to 
two of his disciples ec in another form/' h trip* poppy ; 
and therefore, Christ's ec being in the form of God'' 
merely denotes his resembling God by the possession 
of extraordinary wisdom, and miraculous powers. 
But though poppy does sometimes denote the exterior 
of a thing, it never signifies the exterior without 
the essential qualities. Thus, in the above cited 
instance from Mark, our Lord was in reality and 
essence the same as before, and the form or exterior 
only were different. It is observable, that when he 
was transfigured upon the holy mount, the word in 
the original is pinpoppuSy, (Matt. xvii. 2. Mark ix. 2. 
Compare Luke ix. 29.) which implies that his 
external appearance was changed, but his personal 
identity remained the same. Nor do I find any 
exception to this remark : for Isaiah xliv. 13. to 
which Grotius appeals, is in the Septuagint tag poppyv 
uvSpog, he maketh the image " after the figure of a 
man," which is a very different expression from h 
poppy av^pog. In good authors poppy signifies the 
essential form or being f; and when applied to 

* Suicer, Thesaur. torn. ii. p. 377. Dr. Waterland, Fifth 
Serm. at Lady Moyer's. 

-j- " Schleusner explains it " per raetonymiam ; ipsa natura 
et essentia alicujus rei ;" and says it is applied in Phil. ii. 6. 
" ad designandum sublimiorem ipsius naturam ;" i, e, ChristL 
See also Hammond in loc. 



42 Express Testimonies to the [chap. ii. 

immaterial and invisible things, it can mean only 
their essential nature. The Greek Fathers, there- 
fore explain it by <pv<riq and our/«, when it is applied 
to God. 

Another objection is, that as Christ is said to 
have appeared in the form of a servant, when he 
was not really a servant, so he might appear in the 
form of God, without being really God. To this 
it may be answered that Christ was really a servant 
or minister, inasmuch as he was sent by, and re- 
ceived a commission from the Father # . " I am 
among you," says our Saviour, ec as he that serveth:" 
(Luke xxii. 27.) and he declares that " he came not 
to be ministered unto, but to minister (Matt, 
xx. 28. Mark x, 45.) and in a variety of passages, 
the Scripture speaks of him as a servant or minister, 
executing the commission appointed to him, and 
acting in obedience to the will of God. All these 
expressions refer to him in his human nature and 
mediatorial capacity.— Others are of opinion that 
ioZxog in this passage means a man of low and mean 
condition, such as our Saviour was upon earth f. 
And this is favoured by the subsequent clauses ; for 
though our authorized version inserts two copulative 
conjunctions, neither of them are in the original, 

* " Dum servi et ministri Patris provinciam in se suscepit. 
Christus propterea appellatur JowAof , minister Dei, quod Patris 
niandata in se suscepit injunctumque sibi negotium gessit." 
Rosenmiiller, Scholia in ioc. 

f Schleusner, Lex. in voc. 8. Bull, Prim. e,t Apostol. 
Traditio. cap. 6. § 20. Bishop Pearson, On the Creed, vol. i. 
p. 199. Bishop Burgess, Bible and Nothing hut the Bible, 
p«113. 



chap, ii.] Divinity of Jesus Christ. 43 

and the verse should be rendered — " But emptied 
himself, taking or assuming the form of a servant, 
being made in the likeness of men," Where, if 
any man doubt how Christ emptied himself, the text 
will satisfy him, by ce taking the form of a servant ;" 
if any man still question how he took the form of a 
servant, he hath the Apostle's solution, by " being 
made in the likeness of men." 

Whichever of these interpretations be preferred, 
it is clear, that the objection is not valid. — But 
further ; does not the very expression " taking or 
assuming the form of a servant/' imply an inherent 
power, which can only belong to Deity ? Can it, 
with any propriety, be said of a mere man, that he 
assumed the form of a servant ? Every man's sta- 
tion and condition of life are assigned by the Al- 
mighty ; and no prophet, no delegate of Heaven 
can be said voluntarily to assume his office. He 
receives it by the appointment of God : but our 
Saviour is here said to take upon himself the form 
of a servant, which voluntary assumption implies a 
power, which cannot exist in any being less than 
God. 

The next phrase also, cc thought it not robbery," 
oJ;c c6p7r<xy[A0i/ iyn<ja.To } is unexampled in Scripture : 
and great difficulty exists in ascertaining its exact 
import # . But our translators seem to have given its 

* The principal expositions, both ancient and modern, of 
this phrase, are enumerated and examined by Sir Richard 
Ellys, Fortuita Sacra, p. 190, et seq. The whole of this 
learned writer's remarks on Phil. ii. 6. are well worthy of 
attention. 



44 Express Testimonies to the [chap. ii. 

true signification: because,, 1st. It suits the context. 
Christ, being* in the form of God, thought it not 
robbery, i. e. a robbing God of his glory, to be equal 
with God. 2dly. It is supported by the ancient ver- 
sions*. 3dly. ap-nrayfAos, being derived from dpira^, 
to seize, or take away by violence, is most naturally 
interpreted of the act of robbing, a robbery ; espe- 
cially as nouns in ^o? usually signify action. 

Those who prefer the rendering ec did not eagerly 
catch at a resemblance to God." build chiefly upon 
the opposition of the two clauses, and the force of 
the particle a?\Xa ; i. e. he did not affect this equa- 
lity, but humbled himself. aAAa, however, often 
means nevertheless, and, what is most to our pre- 
sent purpose, when it is preceded by cJp^ ; (see 
Rom. v. 13, 14. % Cor. xii. 16.) and it should be so 
translated in the passage before us. This rendering 
would likewise require dpnaypoq to be taken in the 
sense of prey or spoil; of which no instance has 
been produced ; and which is contrary to gram- 
matical analogy ; apiray^a being a prey or spoil, 
and ap7ra.yfji.Qs the act of preying or plundering. 
The phrase can scarcely then mean the earnestness 
of desire, the pursuing a thing eagerly, as robbers 
do their prey. But however it may be explained, 
and other interpretations may be seen in Wolfius, 
it makes little difference ; as the evidence of Christ's 
divinity does not depend upon this, but upon other 
expressions in the verse. 

* " Non rapinam arbitiatus est." Vulg* " Non rapinam hoc 

existimavit." Syr» 



chap, ii.] Divinity of Jesus Christ. 45 

ee To be equal with God/' to hvoli 1<tol ©*w. The 
word T<ra seems to be the neuter plural put for the 
singular, and to denote equality, tax only occurs in 
two other places in the New Testament, namely, 
Luke vi. 34. Revel, xxi. 16. in both of which it 
undoubtedly signifies equality. In the former of 
these texts, they that lend to the rich are said to do 
it, that they may receive from them " as much 
again where i& ha, means that which is equally 
valuable, an equivalent. So t7wi 7<rx is to be equal, 
and ziuai Icra, ©£w is to be equal to God, of the same 
value and real power and divinity with God the 
Father. It is acknowledged that 7<rtz by itself often- 
times signifies no more than as, like as } instar; but 
as Bishop Pearson observes, the strength of our 
interpretation, rendering an equality, lies in the verb 
substantive to moli. Where it is used adverbially 
for instar, it never has the addition of to won *. 
In the passage under consideration, it is rendered 
by words denoting equality in the Vulgate and old 
Syriac versions +, and this is clearly its natural and 
unforced meaning. Allowing, however, that it may 
be translated " to be as God/' it will still import 
divinity, eternity, immutability, omniscience, and 
every perfection entering into the very idea of God ; 
for as infinite attributes admit of no increase or 

* Pearson, On the Creed, vol. ii. p. 132. Schleusneri Lex. 
Glassii Phil. Sac. p. 65. ed. Dathe. 

t " — esse se aequalem Deo." Vulg. " Nequaquam ra- 
p's nam aestimavit hoe ipsum quod esset aequalis Deo/' as Schaaf 
well renders the Syriac. 



46 Express Testimonies to the [chap, it, 

diminution, he who is as God, or like as God, must 
be possessed of these attributes. If he were not, 
it is impossible he could consistently be said to 
resemble God, since the distance between God and 
the creature is infinite. There is, moreover, a 
degree of impiety in the supposition of a man's aim- 
ing at any resemblance to God ; yet the assertion 
that Jesus " thought it not robbery, or did not 
covet to be as God," implies the possibility of his 
doing so, which is to suppose him capable of such 
profane arrogancy as can find no admission into a 
pious mind. It is therefore inconceivable how the 
Apostle could affirm that Jesus " did not covet to 
be as God," except he believed him to participate 
in the divine nature # . 

(C But made himself of no reputation," oIaXoc should 
be rendered " nevertheless, 1 ' or " yet," as Doddridge 
and others have observed, lowers is, I think, cor- 
rectly rendered by our translators, " made himself 
of no reputation :" though others, following the 
Syriac and Vulgate, render it (C he emptied himself." 

* The Unitarian Version, called an Improved Version, is, 
*' did not eagerly grasp at the resemblance to God and in 
the note the meaning is explained, that " he did not make an 
ostentatious display of his miraculous powers." This implies 
that " his miraculous powers" were left to his free-agency, 
otherwise there could neither be humility nor Ostentation in 
the use ; but will the Improving Translators be kind enough to 
inform us, how this is compatible with the notion of our Lord's 
simple humanity ? Again, will they have the goodness to inform 
us how a display of miraculous powers can constitute " a re- 
semblance to God ?" 



chap, ii.] Divinity of Jesus Christ. 4f 

In what this humiliation or exinanition consists, 
the Apostle explains in the two following clauses of 
this verse, which are explanatory of the first; 
namely, " his taking the form of a servant, being 
made in the likeness of men/' When our Lord is 
said to have " made himself of no reputation," or 
to have " emptied himself," which signifies much 
the same, we are not to suppose that he lost any 
thing which he had before ; or that he ceased to be 
" in the form of God/' by taking upon him " the 
form of a servant." He had the same essential 
glory, the same real dignity, which he ever had, 
but among men concealed it ; appeared not in 
majesty and glory like to God, but divested himself 
of every dazzling appearance, and every outward 
mark of greatness, condescending to appear, and 
act, and converse as a man, like unto us in all 
things, sin only excepted. In this sense it is that 
our Lord emptied himself. He came not with any 
pomp and ostentation of greatness, he laid aside his 
godlike majesty, and disrobed himself, as it were, of 
all outward glories, becoming a man, a miserable 
man, and, in that nature, suffering, bleeding, and 
dying for us # . 

It is evident that our Saviour's " taking the form 
of a servant," is here contrasted with his " being in 
the form of Godj" he must then have previously 
existed in the form of God ; because he was not in 
the form of a servant but by emptying himself, and 



* Di\ Waterland, Sermon v. at Lady M oyer's. 



48 Express Testimonies to the [chap, ii. 

all exinanition necessarily presupposes a precedent 
plenitude. Now this exinanition consists, as we 
have seen, in his taking the form of a servant and 
becoming man ; he was therefore in the form of 
God before he became incarnate, which at least 
amounts to a full proof of his pre-existence. It is 
impossible to conceive how he could make himself 
of no reputation by being cc made in the likeness of 
men," unless he had existed in an antecedent state 
of dignity and glory. 

The next phrase <c was made in the likeness of 
men," is strange and unaccountable, if Christ were 
nothing more than a mere man. In this very asser- 
tion of his humanity there is an intimation of his 
superior nature. A human being can only appear 
in the likeness of men ; but it was a real exinanition 
for the divine Word to appear in that form. Be- 
sides the supposition of Christ's simple humanity 
destroys the force of the Apostle's argument : for it 
would be absurd to exhort the Philippians to humi- 
lity from the example of Christ, who, being a mere 
man, did not make himself equal with God. It is 
surely no proof of a humble mind not to arrogate 
similitude to the Almighty. But the reasoning, 
according to the common interpretation, is very 
strong ; for what example of humility can be so 
worthy imitation as that of Christ, who, though a 
divine person, voluntarily condescended to assume 
the lowest condition of human nature, and to submit 
to a cruel and ignominious death *. 

* It may be remarked that " being in the likeness, h bpoMpotri, 
of men," does not imply that Christ had only the appearance of 



chap, ii.] Divinity of Jesus Christ. 49 

The last phrase requiring illustration is, ee Where- 
fore God also hath highly exalted him for it is 
not easy to determine in what this exaltation consists. 
One who is truly God cannot, in the strict sense of 
the term be exalted, inasmuch as he cannot receive 
any accession to his inherent dignity, glory, and 
happiness. The orthodox commentators, therefore, 
chiefly adopt one or other of the following interpre- 
tations : First, That this exaltation refers to the hu- 
man, and not the divine nature of Christ; and means 
his receiving those honours and titles in his human 
or mediatorial capacity, which he had always en- 
joyed in another. Secondly, That the text does not 
speak of any proper exaltation, but of the more 
illustrious manifestation of Christ to mankind. The 
resurrection and ascension of Christ was a means of 
spreading the true religion throughout the world, and 
of bringing all nations to acknowledge the glory of 
the Son of God. Thirdly, That this exaltation was 
both the re- investing him with the glory he had 
before, and also conferring on him the new title of 
Lord and Saviour. As any of these interpretations 
is compatible with our Redeemer's divinity, it is 
unnecessary to discuss their relative merits *. 

Having thus examined the principal expressions, 

man ; for the word opuw/xa often denotes sameness of nature. 
Thus Adam is said to beget a son in his own image, (Gen. v. 3.) 
and Christ to be made like his brethren in all things, hpoiuSwou, 
(Heb. ii. 14—17.) See Whitby and Macknight On Phil. ii. 7. 

* Besides the commentators, see Randolph's Vindication, 
P. II. p. 95. 

E 



50 Express Testimonies to the [chap. h. 



it is new proper to subjoin a translation and para- 
phrase of the whole. " Let this mind be in you^ 
this temper and disposition, which was in Christ 
Jesus ; who being in the form of God, being essen- 
tially God, thought it not robbery, thought it not a 
robbing God of his glory, or knew that he did not 
wrongfully assume, to be equal with God ; never- 
theless he made himself of no reputation, or he 
emptied himself, viz. hid his majesty and glory 
under the garb of humanity, taking the form of a 
servant, being made, or, being born, in the like- 
ness of men ; and being in fashion as a man, he 
humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even 
the death of the cross. Wherefore God hath highly 
exalted him, hath illustriously proclaimed the su- 
per-eminent dignity of the Son, and given him a 
name, viz. Lord and Saviour, which is above every 
name ; that at the name of Jesus every knee should 
bow, &c." 

The exposition here adopted rests upon the firm 
basis of accurate and critical interpretation ; yet 
another has been supported by commentators of no 
small eminence, which refers Christ's " being in 
the form of God," to his glorious appearances under 
the Patriarchal and Mosaic dispensations * ; of 
which glory he divested himself when he took the 
form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of 
men. This exposition, however, does not seem to 
be established by any thing like satisfactory evi- 

* See Whitby, Doddridge, Peirce, and Macknight, in loc, 
and Parkhurst on the several words. 



chap, ii.] Divinity of Jesus Christ 51 

dence ; but if even it should be thought preferable, 
it will still infer the divinity of our Lord. For 
it not only proves his p re-existence, but, if he 
appeared to the patriarchs and prophets, he must 
have been the Jehovah of the Old Testament, to 
whom all the divine attributes are ascribed. 

IV. Rom. ix. 5. " Whose are the Father's, and 
of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who 
is over all, God blessed for ever." As the re- 
ceived reading of this text is confirmed by all the 
MSS. hitherto collated, by every ancient version 
extant, and in every Father who has had occasion 
to cite the passage, its authenticity is incontestable, 
and conjectural emendation is wholly inadmissible *. 
As, according to the authorized version, it strongly 
and unequivocally attests the divinity of our Saviour, 
the Unitarian, as might be expected, has endea- 
voured by various ways to evade its force. 

The first and favourite measure is to adopt a 
different construction of the words, by which it is 
made to be a Doxology to the Father. With this 
view, he places a colon or full stop after cra'paa, 
and translates it — " Of whom, by natural descent, 
Christ came : God, who is over all, be b!essed for 
everf." To this it is justly objected, that in all 
the Doxologies occurring in the Scriptures, wherein 
ivhoyviTos is used, it is invariably placed at the be- 

* Magee, On Atonement, Postscript to Append, p. 101, et 
seq, where are some excellent remarks, 
t The Unitarian Version. 

e2 



52 Express Testimonies to the [chap. ii. 

ginning of the sentence. In the New Testament 
there are, according to Stephen's Concordance, 
four instances besides the text in question, namely, 
Luke i. 68. 2 Cor. i. 3. Ephes. i. 3. 1 Pet. i. 3. and 
in the Septuagint, according to Trommius, nearly 
forty , all conspiring to prove this usage*. The 
same arrangement is observed in the formula of 
cursing, in which IniKKTolpxToq always precedes the 
mention of the person cursed ; as Gal. iii. 10. 13. 
Deut. xxvii. and many other places in the Old 
Testament. 

Another construction has been proposed, by which 
the verse is to be thus pointed and translated — 
" Of whom, as concerning the flesh, is the Christ, 
who is over all. God be blessed for ever." But 
this, as Bishop Middleton remarks, " would require 
cc us not only to transpose suAo^to? but to read 
u e 0£or. This word, as has already been remarked, 
" though it have some latitude in taking or reject- 
" ing the article, never uses its licence so as to 
" create the least possible ambiguity : thus it can 
" make no difference, whether we write (viii. 8.) 
" QeZ or T£l / 0£u> ocpUxi, but tuAo^TOf 0£©f will appear 
" to signify, not ' blessed be God,' but that the 
" words are to be taken in immediate concord with 
" each other : accordingly, in all instances where 
<e a Doxology is meant, we find svxoynrog o Geo? f." 

* The Septuagint Version of Psalm Ixviii. 19. has been sup- 
posed to be an exception ; but it is not so, even according to 
the present text, which is evidently corrupt. 

t On the Gr. Art. p. 460. The whole note is admirable. 



chap, il] Divinity of Jesus Christ, 53 

Mr. Wakefield, retaining the received punctua- 
tion, adopts a lower sense of @£og, and renders it, 
" who is, as God, over all, blessed for evermore." 
To this it is sufficient to reply, that we have no 
warrant in the Scriptures for attributing a subordi- 
nate sense to the word God, as is evident from the 
observations in chapter iv. § xvii. of this work; that 
it is not agreeable to the usage of Scripture to apply 
the solemn formula <c blessed for ever" to an inferior 
Divinity ; and that it gratuitously introduces a par- 
ticle which has nothing corresponding to it in the 
original. 

As these proposed renderings are contrary to 
grammar and sound criticism, it follows that we 
must adopt the only remaining construction, which 
is that of the standard version, (C Of whom, as con- 
cerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, 
God blessed for ever." In retaining this transla- 
tion likewise we are borne out by several substantial 
reasons. In the first place, it is the most natural 
rendering, and entirely agreeable to the analogy 
and usual construction of the Greek language. 
Secondly, it is supported by all the ancient ver- 
sions *. Thirdly, it was so understood by the an- 
cient Fathers f . 

* " Et ex quibus apparuit Christus in carne, qui est Deus 
supra omnes. Cui sint laudes et benedictiones in seculum 
seculoruni." Syriac. " Ex quibus est Christus secundum carnem, 
qui est super omnia Deus benedictus in secula." Vulg. And to 
the like effect are the Arabic and iEthiopic versions. 

+ Authorities may be found in Petavius, Dog mat. Theol, 
p. 49. Bull, Def. Fid. Nic. sect. 2. cap. 5. § 3. Pearson On 



54 Express Testimonies to the [chap. it. 

Fourthly, the received translation, if not abso- 
lutely required by the context, at least coheres with 
it better than any other. The scope of the Apostle 
is to magnify the Israelites by the enumeration of 
such privileges as belonged peculiarly to that chosen 
nation, and among these the most eminent was, that 
the Messish, according to the flesh, descended from 
them. If Christ was only man, and if St. Paul 
asserts no more than from the Israelites, " according 
to the flesh, Christ came," the beauty of the climax 
is lost ; for what great honour could accrue to them 
from the nativity of a mere man ? Christ u could 
(< not be better or greater than Abraham or Isaac by 
" this fleshy origin, and to insist so particularly 
" upon it, should have rendered the matter more 
" marked and certain ; but there is a magnificent 
" rise in the climax when we come to read that this 
" Christ, who came of the fathers, according to the 
" flesh, was indeed and reality God blessed for 
" ever*." 

Fifthly, there is an evident antithesis in the verse 
which confirms the common translation. The phrase 
" according to the flesh," appears clearly to be de- 
signed to distinguish what he was in that respect, 
to x«t« o-apna, from what he might have been or was 
in another. It carries our view to something else 
than a nativity according to the common course of 

the Creed, vol. ii. p. 142. Whitby in Loc. Wordsworth, 
Letters to Granville Sharp. Hales, Faith in the Trinity, 
Lett. VII. p. 294. 
* Nares, Remarks on the Unitarian Version, p. 165. 



chap, ii.] Divinity of Jesus Christ. 55 

things. It leads us to ask, what was he not accord- 
ing to the flesh ? If an antithesis were not intended, 
the phrase is useless and pleonastic; but granting 
that antithesis, which the phrase undoubtedly implies, 
we have that to which it is opposed at the end of 
the sentence, namely, that he was ff God blessed 
for ever." This is the only view of the verse that 
renders the phrase intelligible, and the Apostle's 
language consistent; and in this view it fully ex- 
presses the two natures, united in our Redeemer, 
the human and divine. 

Here, then, we have an express testimony to the 
divinity of Christ. He is not only called God, 
which in itself is decisive, but there is added a very 
high and distinguishing epithet, " who is over all," 
ItA ttMm, the very same that is applied to the Father 
himself in Ephes. iv. 6. and in the opinion of Eras- 
mus, it attributes divinity to Christ beyond all rea- 
sonable doubt *. Some, it is acknowledged, have 
objected, that Christ is no where else called " God 
over all f ." In a doubtful case, this argument might 

* " Qui est super omnia. Hasc distinctio tribuit divinitatem 
Christo, quod nihil est super omnia praeter unum Deuin." 
Erasmus in loc. 

f Dr. Clarke's Script. Doct. p. 86. Rosenmiilleri Scholia 
in loc. It may well be doubted whether the objection be 
founded in fact. Christ is not said to be " God over all;" but 
" who is over all, God blessed for ever/' (See Doederlein, 
Instit. Theol. Christ § 105. obs. 3.) Still the characters of 
" being over all" and " God" are ascribed to Christ, which 
some may think a sufficient ground for the objection. But it is 
of no weight. 



56 Express Testimonies to the [chap. ii. 

have some weight, but in a clear one, none what- 
ever ; because, as all Scripture is given by inspira- 
tion of God, any one undoubted text is sufficient to 
establish the doctrine contained in it. The objec- 
tion, however, is founded in error ; for the Baptist 
styles Jesus In dvca iroivloov, above all. Compare also 
Rom. x. 12. Acts x. 36. Nor is this incompatible 
with the Son's subordination ; for Dr. Water! and 
observes, ci the Father is excepted out of the num- 
<e ber of those things over which the Son is God. 
€£ Those general expressions over all, &c. leave 
te room for such tacit exceptions as either other 
<c Scriptures or the reason of the thing shews, ought 
(S to be made. And this we hope will be remem- 
ec bered, in favour of the Son and Holy Spirit, as 
" often as the Father is said to be above all, &c * " 
The addition of ivXayiAoq ilg rovg aluuotg, " blessed 
for ever/' is also characteristic of divinity. It is 
the same that St. Paul applies to the eternal Creator, 
Rom. i. 25. 2 Cor. xi. 33. and is the constant epi- 
thet of the great God in the Old Testament f ; 
which gives probability to the supposition that it is 
applied by the Apostle to Christ, because in him 
dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. We 
may, therefore, to use the language of Dr. Dod- 
dridge, cc consider this as a memorable text, contain- 
" ing a proof of Christ's proper deity, which the 
te opposers of that doctrine have never been able 
<e nor will ever be able to answer/' 



* Sermon vi. at Lady Moyer's, p. 223. 
t 1 Chron. xvi. 36. Ps. xli. 13. lxxxix. 52. 



chap, ii.] Divinity of Jesus Christ. 57 

V. John x. 27 — 30. " My sheep hear my voice, 
and I know them, and they follow me. And I give 
unto them eternal life ; and they shall never perish, 
neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. 
My Father which gave them me, is greater than 
all ; and no man is able to pluck them out of my 
Father's hand. I and my Father are one." Here 
the plural verb and the neuter noun speak a distinc- 
tion of their persons, and yet a perfect identity of 
their essence. Admitting, however, that the last 
phrase does not prove in itself Christ to be essen- 
tially one with God, as it is applied to believers in 
general, ch. xvii. 11. 21. it nevertheless does prove 
it when taken in connection with the preceding 
verses. The argument rests upon a unity of power. 
For the reason our Lord gives why none shall be 
able to pluck them out of his hand is, because his 
Father is greater than all, and he and his Father 
are one. ec The meaning is," says Dr. Clarke, 
" since none can pluck them out of the Father's 
" hands, and the Father has communicated his 
" power to the Son ; therefore none can pluck 
" them out of the Son's hands : so that being in 
" the Fathers hands, or being in the Son's hands, 
" is in effect one and the same thing* ." But this 
consequence would not hold, unless the Father had 

* Script. Doct. No. 594. John x. 30. was alleged by the 
primitive Fathers in proof of our Lord's real divinity, as may 
be seen in Dr. Waterland, Defence, Qu. 23. See an excellent 
explication of this text in Tittman, Meletem, Sac, in Evangel, 
Joh. p. 396. 



58 Express Testimonies to the [chap. ii. 

communicated all his power to the Son : the Son, 
then, is omnipotent, and therefore God. 

That this is the true meaning appears from the 
inference of the Jews. " They took up stones to 
stone him," and the reason they gave was, that they 
stoned him for blasphemy, because he, being a man, 
made himself God, (v. 33.) Nor did Jesus attempt 
to evade this charge by saying, that he only in- 
tended a unity of glory, or happiness, or will. If 
he knew the accusation to be false, and did not 
rectify their mistake, he dishonoured God, and 
acted as an unfaithful teacher towards man. Com- 
mon candour, and common honesty demanded an 
open and explicit denial. But so far is he from 
contradicting the charge, that his subsequent dis- 
course tended to convince the Jews that he actually 
claimed divinity. <e Therefore they sought again 
to take him," (v. 39.) 

Though the expression h won, like many others, 
may, as differently applied, have different significa- 
tions ; yet, when our Lord's argument is considered, 
it cannot in this text denote a mere unity of glory, 
or of will, but a unity of power, which amounts 
to a unity of essence * ; for where the power is the 
same, the essence must be so, as Whitby remarks 
from Chrysostom. 

VI. 1 Cor. xii. 4 — 6. " Now there are diver- 
sities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are 

* Schleusner renders the verse, " Ego patre cum eandem 
potestatem habeo." In 6. 



chap, ii.] Divinity of Jesus Christ. 59 

differences of administrations, but the same Lord. 
And there are diversities of operations ; but it is 
the same God which worketh all in all." As this 
argument is borrowed from Bishop Middleton, I 
shall quote his own perspicuous statement of it. 
" The structure of the whole passage leads us to 
ce understand o ivt^ym t& 7rai/7» lv nun as intended to 
" be applied alike to the Three Persons ; else the 
" two preceding verses will be defective, and only 
<c the last will be complete. There we are told, 
ec that it is the same God who works all in all : 
" this is very intelligible : but in the two former 
' c that it is the same Spirit—who does what ? and 
u the same Lord — who does what ? unless we are 
" to understand the concluding clause as appli- 
ce cable alike to the Three Persons : and if so, 
ec then the Three Persons must in some sense be the 
" same*/' 



VII. 2 Cor. xiii. 14. " The grace of the Lord 
Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the commu- 
nion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all." The 
manner in which our Lord Jesus Christ, and the 
Holy Ghost are joined together with God in this 
prayer, infers their personality ; for a petition can 
only be addressed to a real, existing being or beings. 

* Doctrine of the Gr. Art. p. 480. The Trinity has been 
inferred from this passage, both in ancient and modern times ; 
see Wolf, Cura Philol. and Bengel, Gnomon in loc. but no one 
has stated it so convincingly as the learned and accurate scho- 
lar, whose words are quoted. 



60 Express Testimonies to the [chap, il 



And as Jesus Christ, God the Father, and the Holy 
Ghost, are here petitioned for grace, love, and fel- 
lowship, without any intimation of disparity, it 
should seem that these three Persons are co-equal 
and divine. Besides as spiritual blessings can only 
be bestowed by the divine Being, and such are here 
prayed for from the Father, the Son, and the Holy 
Spirit, we conclude that these three Persons form 
one adorable Godhead. See chap. vn. § xxiii. 

VIII. Col ii. 9. " For in him dwelleth all 

THE FULNESS OF THE GODHEAD BODILY/'— On this 

text Dr. Doddridge says; " I cannot think that 
tc these wonderful words are intended merely to 
ce signify, that God hath lodged in the hands of 
" Christ a fulness of gifts, to be conferred among 
<c men ; as if the passage were merely parallel to 
" Ephes. iii. 19. and John i. 16, 17. as Mr. Peirce 
" explains it ; while Socinus sinks it yet lower, as 
" if it only referred to his complete knowledge of 
" the divine will. I assuredly believe, that, as it 
" contains an evident allusion to the Schechinah in 
" which God dwelt, so it ultimately refers to the 
" adorable mystery of the union of the divine and 
" human natures, in the person of the glorious 
" Immanuel." This pious writer does not indeed 
support his exposition by critical reasons ; but that 
it is substantially correct will appear from the fol- 
lowing observations. 

ec All the fulness of the Godhead, " 
SioivHo^ is most naturally interpreted of the ful~ 



chap, ii.] Divinity of Jesus Christ. 61 

ness of the perfections essential to the Godhead. 
SsoTy? and to StTov never signify the gifts of God ? 
but the divine nature only. If we take it, however, 
to mean only divine power, dominion, and authority, 
which is the lowest sense that can be admitted * ; 
yet he in whom dwells the whole plenitude of divine 
power and dominion, must surely be God. 

The Apostle does not say, that the Divinity is 
assistant to Christ, but that the fulness of it dwells 
or resides in him, which is never in Scripture said 
of any other person, but of him alone, who, having 
styled his body a temple, (John ii. 19. 21.) the ful- 
ness of the Deity may be properly said to dwell in 
him bodily, as it did symbolically in the ark. The 
verb xoloixg* corresponds with the Hebrew shacan f , 
which is spoken of God inhabiting the temple at 
Jerusalem J. 

Our interpretation is confirmed by parallel texts. 
Our Lord says, " The Father that dwelleth in me, 
he doth the works," (John xiv. 10.) and particularly 
chap. i. 19. of this Epistle, which, in the common 

* Dr. Clarke, Sciipt. Doct. No. 645. In opposition to Dr. 
Clarke's interpretation of $sotu$, Dr. Waterland shews that it is 
very commonly used for the divine nature, Defence, p. 85. and 
394. In a note to the last passage referred to, he says, " There 
is, in strictness, some difference between to §b7q» and Seotyi? 
(though the latter is often used for the former) such nearly as 
between concrete and abstract ; but still Seorvis refers to nature 
and substance (as ©eo? also generally does) not dominion." See 
his Second Defence, p. 211. 

f pw . 

X See Wolf, Cur<% in he. and Whitby, On the Place. 



62 Express Testimonies to the [chap, ii. 

translation is — " it pleased the Father that in him 
should all fulness dwell ;" but Parkhurst renders it, 
" Because in him the whole fulness, (of the God- 
head namely,) was pleased to dwell ;" and this is 
probably confirmed by the old Syriac version # . In 
both translations it signifies the fulness of divine 
perfections which were communicated to the Son ; 
and may serve to illustrate Col. ih 9. These two 
texts, mutually reflecting- light upon each other, 
form a strong proof of the divine nature of Christ. 

The word " bodily/' is of great significancy; 
for it denotes really, substantially, and not after the 
manner of types and shadows. It is variously ren- 
dered, ec totaliter," ee veraciter vel vere," " substan- 
stialiter vel essential iter/' e( corporaliter :" all amount- 
ing to the same thing, that the plenitude of Deity 
resided in Christ really, effectively, and corporeally f. 

An objection taken from Ephes. iii. 19. once 
seemed to me so formidable as almost to overturn 
the exposition of Col. ii. 9. which is here adopted. 
It may be expressed in the words of Peirce ; who 
says the text in Colossians is the same as " Ephes. 
" iii. 19. That ye might be filled with all the ful- 

* Nares, Remarks, p. 185. 

t " o-apccrvtcoq, b. e. vere, perfectissime, non typice et umbra- 
tiliter, sicut in V. T. Dens se manifestavit. Est autem inha- 
bitatio ilia et unio personalis et singularissima." Glass. Phil. 
Sac. p. 925. " In aliis habitat Deus Spiritu suo, novam lucem 
et novos motus accendens ; sed in Christo habitat non solum 
Spiritu, sed etiam ita, ut personali unione humanae naturae 
divina tqv tiyov sit miita." Suieer, Thesaur, torn, ii, p, 1216. 
See also Wolfius in Col. ii. 9» 



chap, ii.] Divinity of Jesus Christ. 68 

" ness of God 3 i. e. all such fulness as God is wont 
" to bestow, a fulness not of one single gift, but 
" of all the gifts which are needful for Christians/' 
If we consult the original, however, the objection 
will vanish. The Greek text in Ephes. is ivot irXri- 
gto$riT£ EIS 7rocu to TrXypupa, row ©fou, where slg must be 

taken for lv, if the authorized version be admitted ; 
but there is not sufficient authority for this, and it 
is moreover contrary to the rules of criticism to 
distort words unnecessarily out of their common 
acceptation. I am not aware that does ever 
necessarily signify with ; and though Schleusner 
appeals to Acts vii. 53. for that sense, his reference 
certainly does not prove it. At any rate, this is not 
its usual meaning; and the verse in Ephes. may be 
literally rendered— " that ye may be filled, or re- 
ceived into all the fulness of God viz. that ye may 
be admitted into the Christian church, called " the 
fulness," Ephes. i. 23.* Or, if the received trans- 
lation be thought preferable, it may be explained — 
" That ye may be filled with all the fulness of God," 
i. e. with the presence of God, manifested among 
you by spiritual gifts and blessings f . 

Thus Ephes. iii. 19. is not parallel to Col. ii. 9. 
and should it even be allowed that " the fulness of 
God" may, in itself, mean, the fulness of divine gifts 

* Schleusner's tenth signification of vr^6u is " comprehendo s 
complector, i. q. *v»hiQ*7uu6u" And he renders Ephes. Hi. 19. 
" in eo, quod recepti estis in Christianorum numerum." The 
Vulgate is " ut impieamini in omnem pleuitudinem Dei." 

f See Maeknight and Parkhurst On the Words, 



64 Express Testimonies to the [chap. n. 

needful to Christians ; yet when applied to Christ, 
in connection with two other expressions, of which 
the one denotes a continual dwelling or abiding, and 
the other a real, substantial, and inseparable union, 
we cannot avoid the consequence, that it intimates 
the Deity of Christ. And therefore we may appeal, 
without hesitation, to Col. ii. 9. as a strong testimony 
to that doctrine. 

IX. Titus ii. 13. " Looking for that blessed 
hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God, 
and our Saviour Jesus Christ. 5 ' — The Greek is 

9 U<rov X^o-tou, which Mr. Granville Sharp translates, 
" Expecting the blessed hope and appearance of the 
glory of our great God and Saviour, Jesus 
Christ * :" and according to the propriety of the 
Greek idiom, it is impossible to understand ©tou and 
<r«JS£0ff otherwise than of one person. 

This interpretation depends upon the rule or 
canon brought forward into notice not many years 
ago by Mr. Granville Sharp. It excited a contro- 
versy, and Unitarians have either treated it with 
ridicule, or denied its applicability to the New 

* Remarks on the Definitive Article, p. 51. Lond. 1803. 
Mr. Sharp's rendering of \iti<pa.nw ty? ^o|*3?, may admit of 
doubt, though he is supported by the high authority of the 
Vulgate and Syriac Versions, and among the moderns of Mac- 
knight. If it is a Hebraism, it may be rendered as in E. T. 
" the glorious appearing, &c." In either way of translating 
it, the sense is nearly the same : and the stress of the argument 
rests upon the following words. 



chap, ii.] Divinity of Jesus Christ. 65 

Testament. But after it had been shewn by Mr. 
Wordsworth, that most of the texts to which the 
rule applies, were understood in the way Mr. 
Sharp explained them by the ancient Fathers, who 
must surely have known the idiom of their native 
tongue ; and after the doctrine of the Greek article 
had been investigated with so much penetration 
and learning by Dr. Middleton, all who have paid 
attention to the subject have acquiesced in the 
canon. 

As a grammatical question, even, it deserves the 
candid examination of every scholar; but its im- 
portance is greatly enhanced when it is considered 
in reference to the doctrine of our Lord's divinity. 
Those who desire to prosecute the inquiry ought to 
study Dr. now Bishop Middleton's Doctrine of the 
Greek Article, a work replete withj so much solid 
erudition, accurate criticism, and valuable illus- 
trations of the the New Testament, that it should 
be in the hands of every biblical student. This 
incomparable scholar thus states the canon : " When 
Ci two or more attributives, joined by a copulative 
" or copulatives, are assumed of the same person 
" or thing, before the first attributive, the article 
" is inserted; before the remaining ones it is 
" omitted*." This, however, is not to be taken 
without certain limitations. It cannot apply to such 
attributives coupled together as are, in their nature, 

* Doct. of the Gr. Art, p. 79. By attributives this learned 
writer means adjectives, participles, and nouns, significant of 
character, relation, or dignity. 

F 



66 Express Testimonies to the [chap. ii. 

absolutely incompatible. Hence arise some excep- 
tions to the rule in proper names, names of dis- 
tinct substances } names of abstract ideas, and 
occasionally in plurals. With these limitations, the 
rule is invariably observed by the writers of the 
New Testament. No instance in which the rule 
is violated has been,, or can be produced ; and if 
the sacred penmen have adhered to it in every other 
place, it is irrational to suppose that they have de- 
parted from it in those passages relating to our 
Saviour's Deity, where accuracy of expression was 
so highly important. 

Applying this canon to Tit. ii. 13. we are con- 
strained to own, that the titles of tc great God" and 

Saviour/ 5 are there equally attributed to Christ. 
This interpretation is not only required by an in- 
variable idiom of the Greek language ; but is also 
confirmed by other considerations. 1st Because 
iTTHpocvna, the appearing, is always in the New Tes- 
tament ascribed to the Son alone, and never to the 
Father* Though it is said that " the Son of Man 
shall come in the glory of his Father/' (Matt xvi. 
27.) it is nowhere in the New Testament said that 
the Father shall appear, but the Son only. 2dly. 
Christ is emphatically styled " our hope/' " the 
hope of glory/' (Col. i. 27. 1 Tim. i. 1.) And, 
lastly, this interpretation is confirmed by the unani- 

* The following are the places where impawa occurs, from 
Stephen's Concord. 2 Thess. ii. 8. 1 Tim. vi. 14. 2 Tim. i. 10. 
iv. 1, 8. Tit. ii. 13. 



chap, ii.] Divinity of Jesus Christ. 67 

mous judgment of the Greek Fathers, and of all 
the Latin Fathers, except one ; for proof of which 
I refer to Wordsworth's Letters to Granville Sharp. 
The authority of the Greek Fathers is, in this case, 
of the highest value. They could not have been 
mistaken in one of the commonest idioms of their 
native tongue ; and it cannot be conceived that 
they would combine in giving a false interpretation 
of the Apostolic language ; nor, if they had col- 
leagued in such a design, could it have succeeded 
among native Greeks. Since then, they agree in 
the construction here defended, it must unquestion- 
ably be the true one. These observations are 
equally applicable to the other texts subject to Mr. 
Sharp's rule ; which if the Fathers have so under- 
stood, their authority is decisive. 

Against this construction of the text it is ob- 
jected, that the title of the " great God" is the pecu- 
liar appellation of the Father in the Old and New 
Testament. " But the fact is uncertain, and may as 
" easily be denied as asserted. As to the texts of 
" the Old Testament, since there is nothing to dis- 
" tinguish whether they are meant of God the 
" Father, or Son, or both, or of the whole Trinity, 
" no certain argument can be drawn from them 
" The God of Israel is the great God there spoken 
" of ; and it is begging the question to interpret 
" the passages of the Father only. As to the New 
ec Testament, there is but one single text cited to 
(e this purpose ; and it is Rev. xix. 17. where (if 

f2 



68 Express Testimonies to the [chap, ii. 

" that be the true reading*) mention is made of the 
ee supper of the c great God.' But if it be con- 
" sidered that our Saviour is styled ' King of kings, 
" and Lord of lords/ but a very little before, and 
" that the Apostle goes on speaking of Christ, not 
" of God the Father, &c. we shall be inclined to 
" think that this text of the Revelations, instead of 
c{ answering the purpose of the objectors, is another 
ff evidence of the Son's being styled the * great 
" God f / " Moreover, as we believe that three 
Persons exist in the Divine Nature, every one of 
whom is by himself God, fully possessed of all the 
perfections essential to Deity, it follows that each 
must be the great God. Upon the whole, then, 
this text is an unexceptionable evidence to our 
Redeemer's divinity. 

X. Col. i. 15. " Who is the image of the invi- 
sible God." 

XI. 2 Cor. iv. 4. " — of Christ, who is the 
image of God." 

XII. Heb. i. 3. " Who being the brightness 
of his (the Father's) glory, and the express image 
of his person."— This and the two preceding texts 
are placed together, because they reflect light upon 

* Griesbach's text is to hwvav to psya. rov ©sov ; omitting tov 
t Dr. Waterland's Sixth Sermon at Lady Moyer's. 



chap, ii.] Divinity of Jesus Christ. 69 

each other, and the same observations are in the 
main applicable to each. By comparing them to- 
gether we are naturally led to infer that Christ is 
the image of God, in respect to his possessing es- 
sentially the divine glory, attributes, and perfections. 

The Socinians allege that Christ is called the 
image of God, because the divine power and wis- 
dom were displayed in him ; he having completely 
revealed the Father's will, and confirmed his doc- 
trine by his miraculous works. In support of this 
interpretation they say, that " the image of God/' 
does not imply divinity, since the same phrase is 
applied to man ; and appeal is made to Gen. i. 26, 
27. where it is said that man was created ce in the 
image of God," and to 1 Cor. xi. 7. where the 
Apostle calls man <e the image and glory of God," 
(Compare 2 Cor. iii. 18.) As to the first of these 
passages, a variety of opinions have been enter- 
tained ; nor is it easy to ascertain in what the image 
of God consisted, in which man was first created *. 
Without entering into a detail of these opinions, it 
is sufficient to rebut the objection to observe, that 
Christ is represented to be the image of God in 
a very different manner from that in which Adam is 
said to be so. Adam was formed ee in the image of 
God •" Christ is the very image itself of God. Adam 
was made, " God made man in his own image 
Christ is no where said to be made, but begotten. 
Adam is spoken of as the image of an image, 

* Poli Synop. in Gen. i, 26. Suicer, Thesaur. torn. i. p. 1025, 



70 Express Testimonies to the [chap, ii, 

" God made man in his own image, after his like- 
ness;" Christ as the image of a Person, or Hypos- 
tasis *. As to the second passage from 1 Cor. xi. 7. 
man is probably called ee the image and glory of 
God/' in respect to the dominion with which he is 
invested f. Be this as it may, the Apostle could 
only style man the image of God in the sense in 
which he is so called by Moses, and which, as we 
have seen, was widely different to what the phrase 
denotes when applied to Christ 

Having thus cleared the way by repelling the 
objections, we may proceed to examine the reasons 
which induce us to believe that Christ is the image 
of God, inasmuch as he possesses the divine per- 
fections. 

1st. An image, in the common acceptation of the 
word, is a similitude perfectly representing each 
feature and lineament of the person. If Christ be 
the image of the Father, why should we limit the 
expression to his representing the divine wisdom 
and power ? May we not rather suppose that he 
represents also his holiness, his goodness, his omni- 
science, his eternity ? 

2dly. The word " image/' in some places of 
Scripture, means likeness, if not sameness of nature 
and properties. Thus, 1 Cor. xv. 49. " As we have 

* See Dr. Jamieson's Vindication of the Deity of Christ, 
vol. i. p. 474. 

f See Whitby and Macknight. " Vir. tl 
quatenus imperium in uxorera habet, quemadmodum Deus in 
omnes creatures." Schleusner. 



chap, ii.] Divinity of Jesus Christ. 71 

borne the image of the earthly, we shall also bear 
the image of the heavenly." Heb. x. 1. " The 
law containing a shadow of good things to come, 
and not the very image of these things." Gen. 
v. 3. cc Adam begat a son in his own likeness, 
after his image. " Schleusner says Christ is called 
" the image of God," " ob naturam suam Deo 
simillimam." 

3dly. Jesus is the image of the " invisible God." 
An invisible Being can only be seen by his effects 
of power, wisdom, goodness, &c. An image of 
such a Being must therefore display these effects, 
which cannot be done without possessing the divine 
attributes. It was most likely on this account, viz. 
the possession of the divine perfections, that Christ 
said to Philip, " He that hath seen me, hath seen 
the Father," John xiv. 9. It is not unlikely that he 
is styled the image of God, because he appeared to 
mankind as his Father's representative, reflecting 
as in a glass the perfections of the invisible God. 
It was the opinion of the ancient Fathers, and is 
warranted by Scripture, that the glory of the God- 
head can only be rendered visible in the Person of 
the Son ; and that in all the intercourse between 
God and man, he alone it was who appeared. Or, 
he may be called the image of God, as being the 
true and proper Son of the Father, partaking of 
the same nature ; or this appellation may be given 
him on both accounts, which I take to be the fact. 

4thiy. The text from Hebrews completely con- 
firms our interpretation. The word a7n*u'y a tr^a, an 



18 Express Testimonies to the [chap. n. 

effulgence, is here used metaphorically for a perfect 
representation* ; and as " the glory of God" sig- 
nifies in Scripture, the perfections of God, Christ 
must consequently be the representative of the 
divine perfections in the most absolute and perfect 
manner. X«^«x7^ likewise denotes an express 
image, o^b/wo-if.— 'Ts-oa-Tao-i? is by some rendered 
ce substance but since there is in this passage an 
evident distinction between the Father and the Son, 
which, as observed in chap. i. p. 6. can only be in 
personal properties, we ought to adopt the sense of 
Person, agreeably to the authority of the ancient 
Fathers. Now Christ is here said to be the exact 
image of the Father, he must therefore represent 
the Father's nature and perfections. The language 
is not confined to any particular attribute ; it is 
general, and without any limitation. Such an ex- 
press image of God must have every essential per- 
fection of God, his omniscience, eternity, immuta- 
bility, &c. which clearly infers identity of nature ; 
for if the Son be the express image of the Father's 
Hypostasis, the Son's Hypostasis must be of the 
same essential nature, otherwise the image would 
not be perfect and express. 

The meaning, then, of these three texts, is, that 

* Schleusner explains it by " omne, quod aliquam rem per- 
fecte refert ;" and translates it, or rather gives the sense, thus, 
" uvavyeto-fAu, x. t. K is, qui plane et perfecte refert majestatem 
divinam, eodem fere sensu quo a Paulo Col. i. 15. elxw rZv Qsov 
rov ao^arov dicitur ; scil. Christus." — Rosenmiiller explains it 
by " exemplar plane expressum, viva et absoluta imago/' 



chap, ii.] Divinity of Jesus Christ. 73 

Christ is a true copy of the Father, fully repre- 
senting his essence and attributes, as the impression 
answers, in every point, to the seal. Can this then 
be spoken of a creature ? The description is too 
high and magnificent to be referable to any created 
being. Wherefore the Son, to whom it certainly 
belongs, is uncreated ; and so both eternal and of 
one substance with the Father, 

XIII. 1 John v. 7. " For there are three that 
bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and 
the Holy Ghost : and these three are one." — The 
omission of this verse might be considered as a 
defect, else I should not have quoted it; for its 
genuineness is too dubious to allow its production 
as a witness in the present question. Few can be 
ignorant of the controversy it has occasioned, a 
neat and succinct history of which Mr. Butler has 
given in the Appendix to his Horce Biblicce. The 
principal arguments to prove the spuriousness of 
the text are enumerated in Griesbach's Diatribe, at 
the end of his edition of the New Testament*, 
from which it appears, that it is not found in any 
Greek MS. hitherto collated, except one, the Codex 
Montfortianus, which is comparatively modern f ; 

* A succinct statement of the evidence is also given by 
A. Clarke, at the end of his Comm. on 1 John, by Butler in his 
Horce Biblicce, Append, and by Home in his very useful com- 
pilation, An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge 
of the Holy Scriptures, vol. ii. 627. et seq. 

f " Seculo demum xv. aut xvi. scriptus, recentissimus est, 
ac manifesto e latina vulgata interpolatus." Griesbach, Dia- 
tribe, p. 4. 



74 Express Testimonies to the [chap, m 

that the Greek Fathers have never quoted it, though 
they cite the preceding and following verses * ; and 
that it is wanting in all the ancient versions, except 
the Vulgate, in some of the old MSS. of which it 
is likewise omitted. This, at first, may seem over- 
powering evidence ; but if the reader will atten- 
tively weigh the arguments of Mr. Nolan and Dr. 
Hales, on the contrary side f, he will, perhaps, not 
think it decisive ; and may probably be inclined to 
accede to the opinion of Bishop Middleton, who 
thus concludes his valuable note : <e On the whole, 
" I am led to suspect, that though so much labour, 
(c and critical acuteness have been bestowed on 
t€ these celebrated verses, more is yet to be done, 
" before the mystery, in which they are involved^ 
" can be wholly developed J." 

* Griesbach says that it is not cited by the Latin Fathers, 
where it would have been most to their purpose, and where we 
might have expected it. Notwithstanding what has been said 
to the contrary, I am clearly of opinion, that it is cited in the 
passages which Griesbach quotes from Tertullian and Cyprian; 
to whom may be added Phcebadius, Marcus Celedensis, Idatius 
Clarus, &c. (See Nolan's Inquiry, p. 291. and Hales's Faith 
in the Trinity, Lett. XII.) The remarks of these learned writers 
upon the testimony of the Fathers relating to this text deserve 
attentive consideration. Inquiry, sect. 6. p. 512. et seq. Faith 
in the Trinity, Lett. XII. p. 209. et seq. 

f Nolan's Inquiry into the Integrity of the Gr. Vulg. p. 291. 
512. et seq. Hales's Faith in the Trinity the Doctrine of the 
Gospel, Lett. XI. and XII. 

J Doctrine of the Gr, Art. p. 653. It may be remarked 
that some interpret the last clause " these three are one," of a 
unity of testimony, not a unity of essence. See Macknight. 
Poli Synop. 



chap, ii.] Divinity of Jesus Christ. 75 

XIV. Revel, i. 4. " Grace be unto you and 
peace, from him which is, and which was, and 
which is to come ; and from the seven spirits which 
are before his throne ; and from Jesus Christ, &c." 
— That the first clause describes God the Father, 
by a periphrasis taken from his attribute of eternity, 
admits of no doubt whatever ; the only question is 
as to what is intended by " the seven spirits." This 
phrase seems to be a mystical designation of the 
Holy Ghost ; for, First, Seven, in the language of 
prophecy, often expresses perfection, and may better 
be understood of the most perfect Spirit of God, 
the author of all spiritual blessings, than of seven 
angels *. Secondly, In chap. v. 6. mention is made 
of the Lamb, " having seven horns, and seven 
eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent forth 
into all the earth." The horns denote omnipotence 
and the eyes omniscience ; the seven spirits there- 
fore both belong to an omnipotent and omniscient 
being, and likewise possess these attributes them- 
selves, which can only be the case with the Holy 
Spirit. Thirdly, The seven spirits are sometimes 
said to be the seven spirits of God, (chap. iv. 5.) and 

* Lowman On the Revelations, in loc. Burnet On Art. I. 
p. 39. The number seven was considered as the most perfect 
and best adapted to things sacred, and therefore was held in 
veneration by all antiquity, Jewish and Pagan. See Wood- 
house On the Apocalypse, p. 10. Jennings, Jewish Antiquities, 
vol. ii. p. 276. Beausobre, Introduction in Watson's Tracts, 
vol. iii. p. 286. Potter, Antiq. of Greece, lib. iv. cap. 10. 
Spencer, de Leg. Hebreeor, lib. i. cap. 4. Valpy's Classical 
Journal, for December 1813. No. XVI. p. 365. 



76 Express Testimonies to the [chap. ii. 

sometimes of the Lamb or Jesus Christ, (chap, 
iii. 1. v. 6.) which plainly designates the Holy Spirit, 
which proceeded from the Father and the Son. 
Fourthly, While all the other beings mentioned, 
chap. v. and vi. adore God, the seven spirits are 
never described as doing the same, which seems to 
argue their Deity. Fifthly, They cannot be angels, 
since prayers are never in Scripture addressed to 
angels, nor blessings pronounced in their name. 

For these reasons, it may be concluded that the 
seven spirits in this text denote the Holy Ghost. 
" Since grace and peace/' as Bishop Tomline ob- 
serves, " are prayed for from these three Persons 
" jointly, and without discrimination, we infer an 
" equality in their power to dispense those blessings; 
" and we farther conclude that these three Persons 
" together constitute the Supreme Being, who is 
" alone the object of prayer, and is alone the giver 
" of every good and perfect gift # ." 

XV. Isaiah ix. 6. " For unto us a child is born, 
unto us a son is given, and the government shall 
be upon his shoulder ; and his name shall be called 
Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God, the ever- 
lasting Father, the Prince of Peace." — There can 
be no doubt that this prophecy refers to Christ. It 
was so understood by the ancient Jews f, as well 
as by the Christian Fathers ; and must be evident 

* Elem. of Christ. Theol. vol. ii. p. 90. See on the other 
side Mede, Works, p. 40. et seq. 

f Allix, Judgment of the Jewish Church, p. 44. 

% 



chap. ii. J Divinity of Jesus Christ. 



77 



by comparing it with Luke i. 31 — 33. It there- 
fore only remains to explain and apply it. 

" The government shall be upon his shoulder:" 
the government of what? There is nothing in the 
context to limit this expression, and hence it must 
be taken in its most general sense, viz. the govern- 
ment not only of the Church, but of the whole uni- 
verse. The metaphor is taken from the custom of 
carrying the sceptre, the sword, the key, and other 
ensigns of government, upon the shoulder # . 

" His name shall be called," i. e. he shall be in 
reality what the following appellations signify ; for, 
according to the Scripture style, - e to be called" is 
put for " to be." My house shall be called the 
house of prayer, L e. shall really be the house of 
prayer f. 

" The mighty God." All the ancient versions 
in the Polyglott, with the exception of the Seventy, 
are unanimous in rendering El, God. The Tar- 
gum, indeed, does not take gibbor in the sense of 
mighty, but renders it by " man ;" but it should be 
construed with El, as is clear, not only from the 
Masoretic accentuation which joins them together, 
but from this, that they are found connected toge- 
ther, chap. x. 21. where the God of the Hebrews is 
undoubtedly mentioned J. 

* See Lowth in loc. and on chap. xxii. 22. Poli Synop. 
t Glass, PHI. Sac. p. 222. Macknight, Prel. Es. 4. 
No. 36. 

% this epithet of God occurs Deut. x. 17. Neh. ix. 

32. Jer. xxxii, 18. This phrase in Isa. ix. 6. is rendered by 



78 Express Testimonies to the [chap. ii. 



" The everlasting Father literally, " the Fa- 
ther of eternity by which expression, some 
understand Christ's being the author of eternal 
salvation ; others, his being the founder of the new 
age or dispensation, which is to last as long as the 
sun and moon shall endure. It is more probable 
that it means eternal ; for such seems the most 
natural signification of " Father of eternity 

In this prophecy, then, the Son is not only called 
God, but the mighty God, and the attribute of 
eternity is expressly referred to him, which, taken 
together, amount to an ascription of absolute di- 
vinity. 

Acquila and Symmachus ic?x v &> ^vvctrlf, by Theodotion la^v- 
£or, fovuarw', but as Huet observes, " quid a proselytis Judaeis 
Aquila et Theodotione, quid ab Ebionita Symmacho fidei ex- 
pectemus." Dem. Evangel, prop. ix. cap. 25. § 1. 

* 19 " the Father of the everlasting age," Bishop Lowth ; 
" the Father of the future age,*' Hales, New Analysis, vol. ii. 
p. 457. So Bishop Stock, who says however, in a note, that it 
may be rendered " the Father of eternity, i. e. the owner of it, 
the Everlasting." " Eternus," Dathe, who observes, " Verti 
aternum ex significatione vocis at* apud Arabes frequentissima, 
qua patrem alicujus rei vocant, qui earn possidet. Alii at* per 
auctorem explicant et Messiam volunt describi ut conditorem 
novi et ceterni seculi, ceeonomiae melioris N. T. Utro modo 
v ertas, habes attributum Christo convenientissimum." Not. in 
loc. Rosenmuller also explains it to mean ceternus. Schol. in 
loc. " Pater perpetuitatis vel immortalis." Cocceii. Lex. ed 
Schulz. See some curious remarks confirmatory of this ex- 
planation in tHarmer's Observations, vol. iv. p. 407. et seq. ed 
Clarke. Dr. Priestley's notion of rendering 0« s< my father," 
is quite absurd, as a» in regim. takes a final jod. 



chap, ii.] Divinity of Jesus Christ 79 

There are many other express testimonies to the 
divinity of our blessed Saviour,, which I omit at 
present ; for, as they belong to some of the topics 
discussed in the following chapters, the illustration 
of them may be properly deferred till they again 
come under our review. 



CHAPTER III. 



INDIRECT TESTIMONIES TO THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



I. This chapter will contain a numerous class 
of arguments which attest the divinity of Christ in 
a manner more remote and circuitous. The sacred 
writers occasionally make observations in which the 
deity of our Lord, without being the immediate 
subject of the discourse, is evidently implied. In 
other instances, this important truth, though not 
directly mentioned, forms the groundwork of their 
reflections, the very basis of their argumenta- 
tion, which, on the supposition of its falsehood, 
would possess no validity whatever. Again, by 
comparing Scripture with Scripture, we find the 
same attributes and operations ascribed to the Fa- 
ther, the Son, and the Holy Ghost ; and as we 
begin our inquiries with the acknowledgment of 
the Unity of the Divine Nature, we are compelled 
to infer that each of these three Persons is by 
himself God, and yet all together are but one God- 
head. In all these cases the testimony is not imme- 
diate and express ; but deduced by inference, or 
collected by reasonings more or less circuitous. 



chap, in.] Indirect Testimonies, $c. 81 

Arguments of this description are entitled to the 
serious consideration of those who may doubt the 
fundamental articles of faith. If the premises are 
sound, and the inference legitimate, they are equally 
conclusive with the most express declarations. In 
the discovery of truth, it is of no moment by what 
process of ratiocination it is elicited. 

Indirect testimonies have, in some respects, the 
advantage over those which are more immediate. 
The latter are sometimes evaded by that ingenuity 
of distorting the plainest expressions, which the 
disciples of a certain school have too successfully 
practised. From the most perspicuous phrase, 
when thrown into the alembic of hypercritical phi- 
lology, a sense is often extracted, which no unso- 
phisticated mind could ever suppose it was intended 
to convey. But conclusions fairly deduced from 
the apostolical reasonings cannot so easily be put to 
the torture of a rash and unchastised criticism. 
The opposers of the great mysteries of Christianity 
can seldom explain them away with their usual 
pretences of Jewish idiom, figurative language, and 
oriental phraseology. The evidence of such argu- 
ments may be denied, and so may the clearest 
deductions of reason ; but it can scarcely fail of 
making a forcible impression upon unbiassed under- 
standings. When we discover indirect allusions to 
a particular doctrine, and continual implications of 
it throughout the Sacred Writings, it is impossible 
to account for its being thus interwoven with their 

G 



8£ Indirect Testimonies to the [chap. hi. 

very texture, except upon the supposition of its 
truth *. 

II. Among the indirect arguments for the divi- 
nity of our Saviour, may be classed the proofs of a 
plurality of Persons in the Divine Essence, which 
are discoverable in the Jewish Scriptures. Many 
strong intimations are given of such a plurality ; 
and if there be a Trinity of Persons in the Unity 
of the Godhead, it is beyond a doubt that the Son 
is one of them, which consequently establishes his 
essential deity. Such a mode of reasoning may, 
by the levity of ignorance, be accounted mystical, 
Cabalistic, and may be treated with the most con- 
temptuous disdain ; but it will not be easy to refute 
it. At present, however, I shall waive these argu- 
ments ; not through any want of confidence in their 
cogency, but because a full discussion of them 
would require a volume ; and confine myself to the 
consideration of one clear and convincing argument, 
arising from a comparison of the Old and New 
Testament. 

* From the want of systematic arrangement in the Scriptures, 
the Christian doctrines being oftener indirectly taught, than 
txjtressly delivered, Mr. Hawkins infers the necessity of tra- 
ditionary instruction, See his excellent Dissertation on Un- 
authoritative Tradition, Oxon. 1819. Owing to this want of 
system, he shews, the Scriptures are deficient as to the first 
teaching of the Christian doctrines, though they are perfect 
and sufficient as a rule of faith ; and therefore that the Church 
should teach, and the Scriptures prove the Christian doctrines. 



chap, in.] Divinity of Christ, 83 

III. If it can be evinced, in a satisfactory man- 
ner, that Christ was the divine King who reigned 
over Israel, 01% in other words, the Jehovah of the 
Hebrew Church, his divinity will be clearly demon- 
strated. Though this opinion has been espoused 
by the most learned and able writers of ancient and 
modern times, we must not rest so important a doc- 
trine upon their authority. It is necessary to inquire 
whether it have any foundation in the Jewish and 
Christian Scriptures • and the result of such an 
investigation is, that our Lord was the Jehovah who 
appeared in a corporeal form under the patriarchal 
and Levitical dispensations, and was adored as the 
God of Israel. 

The truth of this position will be acknowledged 
if the following propositions can be substantiated : 
First, That an angel or Divine Person appeared to 
the patriarchs and prophets. Secondly, That this 
Divine Person who appeared to the Hebrews, was 
no created being, but truly and essentially God. 
Thirdly, That this Divine Person was not God the 
Father. Fourthly, That therefore it was God the 
Son. — As the first proposition is too evident to be 
denied, it may be proper to proceed to the proof of 
the second, upon which the main stress of the ar- 
gument rests. 

Now, that the Divine Person who appeared and 
spoke to the Hebrews, though sometimes called an 
angel, was truly God, is evident from several con- 
siderations, 

1st. In him was the incommunicable name of 

g2 



84 Indirect Testimonies to the [chaf. hi, 

Jehovah. We read that the angel of the Lord 
found Hagar in the wilderness and communed with 
her, yet " she called the name of the Lord (Jeho- 
vah) that spake unto her, Thou God seest me," 
(Gen. xvi. 7. 13.; In the eighteenth chapter of 
Genesis, it is related that three Men came to Abra- 
ham, that is, as all agree, three angels in human 
shape, one of whom is expressly called Jehovah, 
(v. 13.) ; after which the same Being speaks again, 
" And the Lord (Jehovah) said, Shall I hide from 
Abraham that thing which I do?" (v. 17.) So 
again in v. 20. ; and afterwards (in v. 22.) " the 
men turned their faces from thence, and went to- 
wards Sodom : but Abraham stood yet before the 
Lord," (Jehovah.) Two of the angels went to 
Sodom, for we read only of two of them who 
arrived there, (ch. xix. 1.) ; so that the Jehovah 
before whom Abraham stood must have been the 
third who staid behind, conferring with Abraham, 
and who is called " the Judge of all the earth," 
(v. 33.) ; and then it is said that " the Lord (Jeho- 
vah) went his way, as soon as he had left commun- 
ing with Abraham." — " The angel of the Lord 
appeared unto him (Moses) in a flame of fire, out 
of the midst of the bush/' who is, in a few verses 
after, called Jehovah, (Exod. iii. 2. 4.) — The angel 
of the Lord appeared unto Gideon, u and when 
Gideon perceived that he was an angel of Jehovah, 
Gideon said, Alas, O Lord Jehovah*; for because 



* Hebrew, mn» 



chap. in. ] Divinity of Christ 85 

1 have seen an angel of the Lord face to face, and 
Jehovah said unto him, &c." (Judg. vi. 11. 22.) 
— u Behold, says God, I send an angel before thee* 
Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him 
not : for he will not pardon your transgressions ; 
for my name is in him," (Exod. xxiii. 20, 21.) 
thereby intimating that he possessed the same na- 
ture with the Father. 

Without multiplying more quotations, these are 
sufficient to shew that the Divine Person who 
appeared was styled Jehovah. Consider then what 
is implied in this appellation. The word Jehovah 
invariably signifies the eternal, immutable God ; 
and it is particularly appropriated to him, as his 
incommunicable name, in many places of the Scrip- 
tures *. Since, then, he was called by this name, 
which peculiarly belongs to the supreme God, he 
must have been God. 

The same inference results from the signification 
of the word Jehovah. The Hebrew names are 
significant and characteristic, either descriptive of 
some quality or circumstance in the object to which 
they belong, or allusive to some event which gave 

* Exod. Hi. 15, 16. vi. 3. Deut. vi. 4. xxvi. 17, 18. xxviii. 58. 

2 Kings xix. 19. Ps. Ixxxiii. 18. cxxxv. 13. Isa. xlii. 8. xlv. 5. 
Jer. x. 10. Hosea xii. 5. and many other places. See Mai- 
monides, More Nevoch. P. I. cap. 61. Buxtorfi Lex. Heh 
Shuckford, Connect, lib. ix„ Fuller, Miscel. Sac. lib. ii. cap. 6. 
Wateiland, Def. Qu. 3. and Serm. J. at Lady Moyers. Pear- 
son, On the Cretd $ vol. i. p. 234. Bull, Opera, p. 8. &c. 



86 Indirect Testimonies to the [chap. hi. 

rise to their imposition *. The word Jehovah de- 
notes independence, immutability, and self-exist- 
ence ; and is very appropriate to him, who was, 
who is, and who is to come, the same yesterday, to- 
day, and for ever f . To confer this name upon a 
person of inferior nature would be a dishonour to 
God ; it would be robbing him of some share of the 
glory which is exclusively his due. Nor would such a 
proceeding be exempt from impiety. It would lead 
to the belief that the person called by this appella- 
tion possessed all the divine perfections, which the 
name expresses : and, as this would tend to poly- 
theism and idolatry, it would be unjust to the sacred 
Writers to suppose that they would transfer to 
created beings a title which is the appropriate de- 
signation of the one supreme God. 

The name Jehovah, it is true, is occasionally, in 
composition with some other word, applied to per- 
sons and places. In this application, however, 

* See An Attempt towards a new Transl. of Proverbs, Prel. 
Diss. p. 18. et seq. 

f Robertson, Clavis Pent. No. 162. Taylor's Heb. Con- 
cordance, and the Lex. Heb. of Cocceius, Dindorf, and Park- 
hurst. Shuckford, Connect, lib. ix. Simonis, Onomast. p. 315. 
It is most naturally derived from mn fuit y eocistit; i. e. him 
who is self-existent and eternal. But see Dr. Hales' Disser- 
tations, p. 138. et seq. Whatever may be its derivation, there 
can be no doubt about its meaning ; and its meaning is such 
that it could not without profaneness be applied to a creature. 
—-Simonis has enumerated a variety of authors who have 
treated of the meaning and derivation of the word Jehovah. 
Qmmastkum, p. 316. 



chap, nr.] Divinity of Christ. 87 

there is no danger of its being mistaken ; for the 
word with which it is combined always serves to 
qualify and limit it, With respect to places so 
named, as Jehovah- Jireh, Jehovah-Nissi, Jehovah- 
Shallum, Jehovah-Shammah % there is no possi- 
bility of supposing that they possessed an intelli- 
gent,, much less a divine nature In proper names 
of persons, it is abbreviated^ and coupled with such 
terms as indicate the distinction between Jehovah 
and the individual named, which prevents the danger 
of mistake f. Had it ever been given to men, or 
any intelligent creature, the design of this distinc- 
tive name would have been defeated ; and instead 
of characterizing the one supreme Jehovah, would 
have contributed to idolatry. As this incommunica- 
ble name is given to the angel who appeared, I 
conclude that he did in reality partake the Divine 
Nature. 

2dly. He sometimes assumed the divine attributes, 
and at other times they are expressly ascribed to 

* Gen. xxii. 14. Exod. xvii. 15. Judg. vi. 24. Ezek. xlviii. 85. 

f As for instance, Abijah, the desire of Jehovah, or Jehovah 
is my father i Adonijah, Jehovah is my lord or master ; Jedi- 
diah, beloved of Jehovah. In these instances, the terms with 
which Jehovah, or rather Jah, is combined, prevent the danger 
of mistake. I have here, and in the text, argued upon the 
supposition that n* is an abbreviation of mrv, (it is so under- 
stood by Simonis, Onomast. p. 521. and many others) ; but if it 
is not an abbreviation of mn», as Gousset, Cocceius, Parkhurst, 
&c. affirm, Jehovah is never in composition applied in names 
of human beings. It has been customary with ail nations to 
impose names, derived from, or compounded with the names 
of their Gods. Simonis, Onomast, p. 484. 



88 Indirect Testimonies to the [chap. hi. 

him by the sacred historian. It has been before 
observed, that one of the angels who appeared to 
Abraham, (Gen. xviii. 1.) was called Jehovah. He 
says, " I will certainly return to thee according to 
the time of life ; and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have 
a son," (v. 10.) ; for " is any thing too hard for the 
Lord ?" (v. 14.) And in v. 25. he is called ce the 
Judge of all the earth." — The Angel-Jehovah who 
appeared unto Jacob when he came out of Padan- 
aram, said, " I am God Almighty, — and the land 
which I gave Abraham and Isaac, to thee will I 
give it, &c." (Gen. xxxv. 9. 11.) Here he claims 
the attribute of omnipotence, which it would have 
been sacrilege and profaneness to arrogate to him- 
self had he been only a created being. It is said, 
Exod. xxiii. 21. that the angel " will not pardon 
your transgressions/' and who can forgive sins but 
God ? — In Gen. xvi. 10. the angel of the Lord 
said to Hagar, " I will multiply thy seed exceed- 
ingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude 
which promise is attributed to God in Gen. xvii. 19, 
20. compare chap. xxi. 18. — In Numb. xxii. we 
read that the angel of the Lord met Balaam, and 
said to him, " Go with the men ; but only the word 
that I shall speak unto thee, that thou shall speak," 
(v. 35.) ; and that this angel was Jehovah, appears 
from chap, xxiii. 4, 5. where it is said " God met 
Balaam," and " the Lord (Jehovah) put a word in 
Balaam's mouth, &c." (comp. v. 16 ) Now Balaam 
describes himself as one " which heard the words of 
God, which saw the vision of the Almighty," (ch. 



chap, in.] Divinity of Christ. 89 

xxiv. 4.) — " And an angel of the Lord came up 
from Gilgal to Bochim, and said, I made you to go 
up out of Egypt, and have brought you into the 
land which I sware unto your fathers ; and I said, 

I WILL NEVER BREAK MY COVENANT WITH YOU," 

(Judg. ii. 1.) This clearly refers to the oath which 
Jehovah sware to Abraham, and the covenant made 
with him, (Gen; xvii. 1, &c.) ; yet the angel here 
calls it the oath which he sware to Abraham, and 
the covenant which he made with him ; an irrefra- 
gable proof that the appearing angel was the Jeho- 
vah. Besides, in a multitude of places, the Scrip- 
tures teach us, that it was the supreme Being who 
brought the children of Israel up out of Egypt; 
whereas, the angel here says, " I made you to go 
up out of Egypt." This passage alone is sufficient 
to demonstrate that the Divine Person who appeared 
under the former dispensations was possessed of the 
divine attributes, and was the Jehovah of the Old 
Testament. 

To this conclusion it is objected that the angel 
only assumed the divine name and attributes, as the 
ambassador of God, and the representative of his 
majesty. But, was it ever known that an ambassa- 
dor was allowed to assume the name and titles of 
his sovereign ? Do not ambassadors, with whatever 
powers they may be invested, in all memorials, 
deeds, and transactions, use their own names, and 
distinguish themselves from their royal masters ? 
And can it be thought that God, who under the 
Jewish economy, was so peculiarly jealous of his 



90 Indirect Testimonies to the [chap. hi. 

honour, and with peculiar reason, considering the 
proneness of that people to idolatry, would not 
only permit, but authorize, a creature to assume his 
name and attributes? The prophets were God's 
ambassadors, yet they never presumed to call them- 
selves God or Jehovah, or to arrogate to themselves 
the divine prerogatives. What they spake was not 
in their own name ; what they delivered was not 
their own, but the word of the Lord ; and the ap- 
pearing angel, so far from speaking in his own 
name, or claiming the divine attributes, would have 
expressly distinguished himself from Jehovah, had 
he been only an ambassador from God. The as- 
sumption of divine attributes, therefore, is a proof 
of his absolute deity. 

3dly. He is expressly called God, and not unfre- 
quently with some accompanying expressions which 
designate him as the supreme God. " The Lord 
(Jehovah) appeared to Abram — and Abram fell 
on his face : and God talked with him," (Gen. xvii. 
1.3.) " Jacob called the place Peniel : for I have 
seen God face to face/' (Gen. xxxii. 30.) " The 
Lord appeared unto Abram, and said unto him, I 
am the Almighty God," (Gen. xvii. 1.) " And God 
appeared unto Jacob- and said unto him I am God 
Almighty," (Gen. xxxV. 9. 11.) The man that 
wrestled with Jacob, (Gen. xxxii. 24.) is called by 
the prophet Hosea both an " Angel/' and " the 
Lord God of Hosts/' (Hos. xii. 4, 5.) From Exod. 
iii. 2. et seq. it may be gathered that the angel who 
appeared to Moses in the bush, is not only called by 



chap, in.] Divinity of Christ. 91 

Moses " Jehovah but he calls himself " the God 
of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of 
Jacob." He likewise distinguishes himself by this 
title, " I am that I am/' than which, as the com- 
mentators agree, nothing- can be more expressive of 
the nature of the supreme God. 

4thly. This appearing angel has divine worship 
paid to him. Abraham offers up prayers to the 
angel who appeared to him in the plains of Mamre ; 
calls him " the Judge of all the earth/' and, by 
interceding with him to spare Sodom, must have 
supposed that he possessed the power to spare or to 
destroy, which in fact is supposing him to be omni- 
potent. Hagar addressed the angel who appeared 
to her, " Thou God seest me," evidently ascribing 
the attribute of omniscience to him. When Abra- 
ham was about to offer up his son, " the angel of 
the Lord called unto him out of heaven— and said. 
Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou 
any thing unto him : for now I know that thou 
fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, 
thine only son, from me/' (Gen. xxii. 11, 12.) To 
offer a burnt-offering was the most solemn act of 
patriarchal worship ; and as Abraham most assuredly 
would not have offered one to a creature, the angel 
to whom he offered his son, must have been, in the 
opinion of the patriarch, the eternal and immutable 
God. We read that Jacob wrestled with a man, 
(Gen. xxxii. 24.) now Hosea tells us who this per- 
son was : " He had power over the angel, and pre- 
vailed, HE WEPT AND MADE SUPPLICATION UNTO HIM : 



92 Indirect Testimonies to the [chap. in. 

he found him in Bethel, and there he spake with us ; 
even the Lord God of Hosts : the Lord is his 
memorial/ 1 (Hos. xii. 4, 5.) He who spake to 
Jacob in a dream was an angel ; yet he " vowed a 
vow unto him and said, If God will be with me, and 
keep me in this way that I go, and will give me 
bread to eat, and raiment to put on, &c. then shall 
the Lord be my God," (comp. Gen. xxxi. 11. 13. 
with ch. xxviii. 20. xxxv. I. xxxii. 9.) The angel 
of the Lord that appeared to Moses in a flame of 
fire out of the bush said, " Draw not nigh hither ; 
put off thy shoes from off thy feet ; for the place 
wheron thou standest is holy grdund," (Exod. iii. 5.) 
A solemn act of reverence which can only be 
required by the presence of the supreme Being. 
The same thing was done by Joshua, at the pre- 
sence of " the captain of the host of the Lord," 
and he " did worship," (Jos. v. 14, 15.) It cannot 
be imagined that this person who appeared to 
Joshua was a creature ; for it would have been ido- 
latrous to pay such a religious homage to a created 
being : " the captain of the Lord's host," must then 
have been the appearing angel, the Angel- Jehovah. 
In the sixth chapter of Judges, we read that the 
angel of the Lord appeared unto Gideon, who thus 
addressed him : " If now 1 have found grace in thy 
sight, then shew me a sign that thou talkest with 
me," (v. 17.) After the angel had given this sign, 
' ' Gideon said, Alas, O Lord Jehovah; for because 
1 have seen the angel of Jehovah (or, the Angel- 
Jehovah) face to face," (v. 22.) Then Jehovah 



chap. hi. j Divinity of Christ. 93 

returns an answer to this address, saying-, " Peace 
be unto thee ; fear not, thou shalt not die," (v. 

Having now seen that the Divine Person who 
appeared to the patriarchs and prophets, had the 
incommunicable name of Jehovah, claimed and pos- 
sessed the divine attributes, is styled in an eminent 
manner God, and is addressed in acts of divine 
worship, the conclusion appears inevitable that the 
Divine Person who appeared to the Hebrews was 
no created being, but truly and essentially God. 

The third proposition is, that this Divine Person 
was not God the Father. This follows from his 
being called an angel, which name is given him, as 
we have seen in many of the above-cited passages. 
God the Father cannot be called an angel ; for this 
appellation implies a ministerial office ; but minis- 
tration is never ascribed to the Father in the Scrip- 
tures, and is incompatible with that priority of order 
which belongs to him. The Father is universally 
represented as the Person who sends, the Son as 
the Person sent. 

We have the express authority of Scripture for 
affirming that God the Father was never visible to 
men. " No man hath seen God at any time." 
" Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor 
seen his shape." " Not that any man hath seen 
the Father." " God is a Spirit," u inhabiting light 
inacessible ;" " whom no man hath seen, nor can 
see*." God, however, is reported, in the Old Tes- 

* John i. 18. 1 John iv. 12. John v. 37. vi. 46. iv. 24. 
Col. i. 15. 1 Tim. i. 17. vi. 16. 



94 Indirect Testimonies to the [chap. hi. 

tament, to have frequently appeared under the 
patriarchal and Levitical dispensations ; and there- 
fore we must conclude that the God who appeared 
was God the Son. 

In this conclusion, we have a solution of two 
difficulties, which are apt to make an impres- 
sion upon the attentive reader. The first is, that 
in Exod. xxiv. 9. we read that ff Moses and Aaron, 
Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel 
went up, and saw the God of Israel while in 
Exod. xxxiii. 20. the Lord said to Moses, ce thou 
canst not see my face : for there shall no man see 
me and live." By " the face of the Lord," is meant 
God himself, as Gen. xix. IS. 1 Sam. xxvi. 20. 
1 Kings xiii. 6. Ps. xxxiv. 16. &c. In the former 
passage, then, Moses, Aaron, &c. saw the Logos, 
the Son of God, who was the God of the Hebrew 
church ; but in the latter it is said that Moses could 
not behold the inscrutable essence, and the invisible 
majesty of the divine nature *. The other diffi- 
culty alluded to is, that Jehovah is said to have 
delivered the law to Moses, (Exod. xix. 9. xx. 1.) 
and yet we read in Acts vii. 53. that the law was 
received u by the disposition of angels/' in Gal. iii. 
19. that " the law was ordained by angels," and in 
Heb. ii. 2. that it was " spoken by angels." Now 
if " angels," be put in the plural instead of the 

* " I mperscru tabilem Dei essentiam et majestatem." Vatabl. 
Others explain this difficulty in a different manner. See Poli 
Synop. Apol. of Ben Mordecai, Lett. II. p. 240. and Randolph's 

Vindication, P. I. p. 53. 



chap, in.] Divinity of Christ. 95 

singular, to denote eminence and dignity, a phra- 
seology common among the Hebrews * these pas- 
sages from the New Testament will only affirm that 
the law was given by the angel who, as has been 
proved, and as is asserted in Exodus, was Jehovah. 
This solution of the difficulty appears to be con- 
firmed by Acts vii. 38. where we find mention made 
of 14 the angel who spake to him in Mount Sina," 
and by Gal. iii. 19, and Heb. ii. 2. which naturally 
signify that " the angels" were the agents in the 
delivery of the law. But as the Scripture affirms 
that it was Jehovah who spake to Moses from 
Mount Sinai, " the angels" spoken of must denote 
the same Person, viz. the Angel-Jehovah, the King 
and God of Israel f . 

The fourth and last proposition is, that the Divine 
Person who appeared to the Hebrews was God the 
Son, This is almost a necessary consequence from 
what has been already advanced ; for if the Person 

* Glass, Phil. Sac, p. 58. ed. Dathe. 

f Many eminent commentators, as Grotius, Krebsius, Morus, 
Schleusner, &c. explain Acts vii. 53. thus, that God delivered 
the law accompanied by his host of angels. But this appears 
to me irreconcilable with Gal. iii. 19. and Heb. ii, 2. which 
cannot grammatically mean any thing else than that the law 
was given by angels, " ab angelis promulgatam not to say 
that it is very doubtful whether J»«T*ya» can admit the sense of 
ordines, turmce, (See Kuinoel in loc.) Again, supposing these 
passages mean by angels, different opinions exist as to the way 
in which we are to understand that the law was ordained by 
angels. My own opinion is given above. Others may be seen 
in the commentators, Randolph, Find. P, I. p. 56. et seq. Park- 
hurst, Lex. Astray?;. 



96 Indirect Testimonies to the [chap, hi. 

who appeared was really God, and yet was not God 
the Father, it must have been God the Son. Of 
the three Pesons in the Godhead, we have seen that 
this Angel- Jehovah was not the first; the third, or 
the Holy Ghost, has never been pretended ; and 
therefore the Person who appeared was the Son, 
the second Person in the Holy Trinity. This in- 
ference seems so fairly deduced, that further evi- 
dence is scarcely required ; yet its importance will 
justify me in enumerating* a few of the direct argu- 
ments by which it is confirmed. 

1st. St. Matthew, speaking of John the Baptist, 
expressly tells us, " This is he that was spoken of 
by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one 
crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the 
Lord, make his paths straight," (ch. iii. 3.) And 
this prophecy is applied to the Baptist in the other 
three Gospels, (Mark i. 2, 3. Luke iii. 4. John i. 23.) 
Now, in the original of Isaiah, (ch. xl. 3.) the words 
are, " Prepare ye the way of Jehovah ;" and con- 
sequently Christ, whose way the Baptist was to pre- 
pare, is here considered by the Evangelist to be the 
same person whom Isaiah calls Jehovah. But the 
name Jehovah is the incommunicable name of the 
eternal God, and therefore Christ is God, the same 
that was worshipped by the Hebrew church. 

2dly. That the Jewish nation were the peculiar 
people of God is so apparent from the whole ten our 
of Scripture, that it were a waste of time to enter 
into a formal proof of the fact *. The Evangelist, 

* See Deut. iv. 20. vii. 6. xiv. 2. xxxii. 8, 9. Kxod. xix. 5. 
Ps. cxxxv. 4. xliii. 1. Jer. x, 16, 



chap, in.] Divinity of Christ. 97 

however, speaking of the Word, or Logos, says, 
" He came into the world, and the world knew him 
not ; he came unto his own, and his own received 
him not,"( John i. 10, 11.) whence it seems reasonable 
to suppose that the words " his own" relate to this 
peculiarity, and that the Evangelist here considers 
Christ as the King of Israel, and the Jews as his 
peculiar people *. 

3dly. St. Paul in proving cc that if thou shalt 
confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt 
believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from 
the dead, thou shalt be saved," quotes the words of 
Joel, " whosoever shall call upon the name of the 
Lord, shall be saved, (Rom. x. 9. 13. Joel ii. 32.) 
In the original of the prophet it is " the name of 
Jehovah and if Christ is not the Jehovah spoken 
of by Joel, this text is absolutely nothing to the 
purpose. 

4thly. In St. Paul's first Epistle to the Corin- 
thians we read, " Neither let us tempt Christ, as 

* Some understand roc lha, in John i. 11. to mean the whole 
earth, and of the inhabitants of it : this interpretation is 
defended by Kuinoel ; but as this makes a tautology with 
ver. 10. I think the former expression means his own country, 
and the latter his own people. (See Schleusner, in 7<W») 
Jahn also supports the same interpretation ; " Si Johannes 
" dicit rov tiyov venisse sis r* i. e. coll. Joh. xix. 17. ad 
" suam familiam seu populum suum, ei tribuit tacite divinita- 
" tern; nam Hebraei dicebantur et erant populus Jehovae." 
Enchiridion Hermeneut. General, § 20. p. 56. Viennae, 1812. 
If the former interpretation be admitted, the argument in the 
text falls to the ground. 

H 



98 Indirect Testimonies to the [chap. hi. 

some of them (i. e. the Jews in the wilderness,) also 
tempted, and were destroyed by serpents/' (ch. 
x. 9.) The pronoun " him" aMv, must be under- 
stood after €€ tempted," and it is found in some 
MSS. though not sufficiently numerous to warrant 
its insertion in the text. It is, however, necessarily 
implied, and refers to Christ just before mentioned. 
The Jews in the wilderness are here said to have 
tempted some person ; and to understand by that 
person any other than Christ, who is just before 
named, is against all grammar, which never allows, 
without absolute necessity, any other accusative to 
be understood by the verb than that of some person 
or thing before mentioned in the same sentence. 
The conjunction h«», also, establishes this interpre- 
tation beyond doubt : " Neither let us tempt Christ 
as some of them also tempted"-— tempted whom ? 
The answer clearly is, as they also tempted Christ. 
If Christ then was the Person whom the Israelites 
tempted in the wilderness, he unavoidably becomes 
the Jehovah of the Old Testament. 

Socinians, to shelter themselves from the force of 
this conclusion, have had recourse to one of their 
usual shifts, and have proposed a various reading. 
Griesbach, however, has not found sufficient evi- 
dence to disturb the received text. He has indeed 
placed that mark before p^ior©* which indicates that 
the reading of the margin, xfyiov is not to be de- 
spised, but is inferior to the received reading. And 
if even xu£»ev were adopted, the Socinian cause is 
little benefited, unless it can be shewn that by " the 



chap, in.] Divinity of Christ. 99 

Lord" Christ is not here intended *. On the whole, 
I consider this text as an indubitable evidence of 
Christ's being the Jehovah of the Hebrew church. 

4thly. " Wherefore he saith, When he ascended 
up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts 
unto men/' (Ephes. iv. 8.) This is a quotation 
from the lxviiith Psalm, and Christ must be the 
person of whom the Psalmist speaks, or the Apostle 
grossly misapplies the psalm. But if Christ is the 
person intended by the Psalmist, a perusal of the 
psalm will convince the reader that Christ was the 
God and King of the Israelites. 

5thly. St. Paul tells us that Moses cc esteemed 
the reproach of Christ greater riches than the 
treasures of Egypt ; for he had respect unto the 
recompense of reward," (Heb. xi. 26.) This text 
has been troublesome to the commentators ; but if 
we consider Christ to be the visible Jeh6vah, every 
difficulty will vanish. The reproach of Christ 
then " may mean the reproach which Moses suf- 
" fered for his name ; because he chose to be nuni- 
" bered among the people of Jehovah, rather than 
" be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, and an 
" Egyptian. The Egyptians reproached and af- 
" flicted the Israelites because they worshipped 
" Jehovah, and were called by his name ; but 
" Moses esteemed that reproach more than all the 
" treasures of Egypt : for he had respect to the 

* See Whitby and Doddridge in loc. Dean Magee's excellent 
remarks in Postscript to Append, p. 211. et seq. Bull, Def. 
Fid. Nic. sect. i. c, i. § 15. 

H 2 



100 Indirect Testimonies to the [chap. nr. 

" reward which he expected to receive from Jeho- 
" vah, who sent him ; and whom St. Paul considers 
" in his future character of the Christ : and it could 
" not be called the reproach of Christ in any other 
e€ sense*/' 

6thly. St. Peter tells us that Christ was " put to 
death in the fleshy but quickened by the Spirit ; by 
which also he went and preached unto the spirits in 
prison ; which sometime were disobedient, when 
once the long suffering of God waited in the days 
of Noah, while the ark was preparing/' (1 Pet. iii. 
18 — 20.) Whatever be the true interpretation of 
this difficult passage, it is plain that Christ is repre- 
sented as preaching by the Spirit in the days of 
Noah ; that is, he inspired Noah to preach to those 
whom the Apostle calls cc spirits in prison," and 
inspiration could come from no other than the God 
of the Jews. 

7thly. Jehovah declares by the prophet Hosea, 
C( I will have mercy upon the house of J udah, and will 
save them by the Lord (Hebrew, by Jehovah) their 
God,"(ch. i. 7.) The Jehovah by whom Jehovah will 
save us can be no other than our Lord and Saviour 
Jesus Christ f. The same mode of argument may 

* Apol. of Ben Mordecai, Lett. II. p. 299. 

t Some, understanding the noun to be put for the pronoun, 
explain it, " I, Jehovah, will save them by myself: " Ipse ego 
eos servabo, Jova Deus eorum," Dathe ; " Per me ipsum, qui 
sum Jova, Deus ipsorum," Rosenmiilier. See Glass, Phil. 
Sac. p. 150. I cannot accede to these translations ; for why 
should the inspired writer use such ambiguous language, when 



chap, in.] Divinity of Christ. 



101 



be applied to Zech. ii. 9. x. 12. to which I only 
refer for the sake of brevity. 

Sthly. " Behold, I will send ray messenger, and 
he shall prepare the way before me ; and the Lord 
whom ye seek shall suddenly come to his temple ; 
even the messenger of the Covenant whom ye de- 
light in : behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of 
Hosts," (Mai. iii. 1.) (C The temple, in the writings 
" of a Jewish prophet, cannot be otherwise under- 
<e stood, according to the literal meaning, than of 
" the temple at Jerusalem. Of this temple, there- 
" fore, the person to come is here expressly called 
" the Lord, The Lord of any temple, in the lan- 
" guage of all writers, and in the natural meaning 
" of the phrase, is the divinity to whose worship it 
" is consecrated. To no other divinity the temple 
" of Jerusalem was consecrated than the true and 
" everlasting God, the Lord Jehovah, the Maker 
" of heaven and earth. Here, then, we have the 
" express testimony of Malachi, that the Christ, the 
ec Deliverer, whose coming he announces, was no 
" other than the Jehovah of the Old Testament 

he might have expressed it clearly, " I, Jehovah, will save 
them by myself" or simply, " I, Jehovah, will save them," if 
such had been his meaning. On the contrary, if two persons, 
both called Jehovah, are meant, the language is perfectly clear 
and correct. See the Targum. 

* Bishop Horsley, Sermon xxx. His four discourses on 
this passage of Malachi] are most excellent, and merit the 
reader's careful attention. See Pococke in loc. and chap. iv. 
§ 31. 



102 Indirect Testimonies to the [chap. in. 

Though I have collected several other arguments 
bearing upon the same point, it is unnecessary to 
prosecute this branch of the subject any farther: 
and I shall therefore conclude with briefly noticing 
an objection, which is certainly the most plausible 
that has been advanced. It is drawn from Heb. i. 
l y % " God, who, at sundry times, and in diverse 
manners, spake in time past unto the fathers by the 
prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by 
his Son :" from which it is argued that God did not 
speak to mankind by the Son till the time of the 
Messiah, called by the Apostle the last days. This 
appeared of such weight to the excellent Mac- 
knight, that he hesitates not to declare, that it over- 
throws the opinion of the ante-Nicene Fathers, that 
the law was spoken to the Jews by the Son. But 
the plain and obvious sense of the words seems to 
be this ; God formerly spake to the Jews by the 
ministration of the prophets, but hath now spoken 
to them by the Son in person. The manner of 
communication under the old dispensation is con- 
trasted with the manner of communication under 
the new. Formerly, the divine Logos, the God of 
the Hebrews, revealed the truths of religion unto 
the fathers through the mediation of Moses and the 
prophets, but in these last times hath assumed our 
nature, and dwelt among us, teaching in person the 
sublime doctrines of Christianity. This is no argu- 
ment, then, against the opinion that Christ was the 
visible Jehovah, the Angel- Jehovah who delivered 



chap, in*] Divinity of Christ. 103 

the law from Mount Sinai, the God of the Old Tes- 
tament % 

Upon the whole, every branch of the argument 
must be allowed to be satisfactorily established. It 
has been shewn, first, that a divine Person ap- 
peared to the patriarchs and prophets : secondly, 
that this Person was no created being 1 , but essentially 
God : thirdly, that it was not God the Father j 
and lastly, that it was God the Son. Our blessed 
Lord, then, was the Jehovah of the Hebrew church; 
not exclusive of the Father, but together with him ; 
that is, the Father and the Son, with the Holy 
Ghost, are the one supreme God, equal in essence, 
power, and perfection. Christ consequently is God 
in the strictest sense of the word f. 

IV. It will be granted, that if Jesus Christ can 

* This, and other objections, are replied to in the Apol. of 
Ben Mordecai, Postscript to Lett. II. 

f The subject here discussed is highly interesting, and de- 
serves to be candidly and seriously investigated by every theo- 
logical student; for the benefit of whom I will point out a 
variety of authors, who have treated upon this question, viz. 
Heidegger, Hist. Patriarch. Exercit. iii. § 12. et seq. Allix, 
Judgment of the Jewish Church, cap. xiii. et seq. Bishop Bull, 
Def. Fid. Nic. sect. i. cap. i. Dr. Waterland, Defence, Qu. 2 . 
Dr. Randolph, Vindication of the Trinity, P. I. Faber, Hor& 
Mosaicce, lib. ii. § 1. cap. ii. Dr. Doddridge's Lectures, Lect. 
clvii. Simpson's Plea for the Divinity of Jesus, P. II. sect. 
7, 8. Dr. Scott's Christian Life, P. II. vol. ii. cap. vii. In 
H. Taylor's Apology vf Ben Mordecai, Lett. II. and III. much 
valuable matter, relative to this subject may be found ; though 
it is to be lamented, that it is mingled with his Arian prejudices. 



104 Indirect Testimonies to the [chap. hi. 

be proved to have had a real personal existence 
before his appearance in the flesh, he cannot have 
been a mere man. This is too evident to be de- 
nied : but perhaps we may meet with some circum- 
stances, in the course of the inquiry, from which it 
may be inferred, that he was really uncreated and 
divine. Let us then see what the Scriptures teach 
us relative to this subject. 

1st. They inform us in the plainest and most 
explicit language that Christ came down from 
heaven. " The bread of God/' says our Lord, 
" is he which cometh down from heaven, and 
giveth life unto the world. — I am that bread of 
life. — For I came down from heaven, not to do 
mine own will, but the will of him that sent me." 

- — cc I AM THE LIVING BREAD, WHICH CAME DOWN 

from heaven/' (John vi. 33, 38. 51.) Again, he 
says, S( No man hath ascended up to heaven, but 
he that came down from heaten, even the Son of 
Man which is in heaven That 6 av is not put 
for riv, i. e. who was in heaven, as Bengel, Tittman, 
and others suppose, appears from this, that w does 
not assume a praeterite signification except in cases 

* John iii. 13. This last clause is wanting in the MSS. BL. 
33. and Griesbach places his mark denoting " omissionem 
minus probabilem ;" but it is well defended by Dr. Magee, 
(On Atonement, Post, to Ap. p. 76. et seq.) who observes that 
one of these MSS. is of the eighth or ninth century, and ano- 
ther of the eleventh or twelfth ; so that the evidence for omit- 
ting the clause rests nearly upon one MS. the Vatican, certainly 
of high authority, but cannot be permitted to outweigh every 
other unmutilated MS. in which the clause is found. 



chap, in.] Divinity of Christ. 105 

where a word or words with which it is connected 
give it a passive sense, as w wXouo-io^ " though he 
was rich;" (2 Cor. viii. 9.) rv<pXog w, ei whereas I 
was blind/' (John ix. 25.) : or where it is to be ex- 
plained by the verb and the particle " when as 
oujog avTQVj " when he was in Bethany/' (Mark xiv. 
3.): q$U<; rjJVj oucruff, " when the even-tide was come/' 
(Mark xi. 11 # .) In other places, likewise, om is 
to be rendered " who is/' not ec who was :" as 
John i. 18. vi. 46. viii. 47. Rom. ix. 5. Rev. i. 4. 8. 
iv. 8. xi. 17. xvi. 5. Though the phrase must be 
rendered " who is in heaven/' yet different expo- 
sitions of it have been given by critics. Some 
interpret it of Christ's being instructed in the gra- 
cious purposes of God to man ; an interpretation 
directly contrary to the literal meaning of the words, 
and unsupported by any just criticism. Dr. Camp- 
bell renders it " whose abode is heaven/' and ex- 
plains it, whose abode, whose residence, whose 
home is there/' The clause " which is in heaven" 
means, in its natural and obvious sense, that the 
Son of Man, according to his divine nature, is in 
heaven, while speaking to the Jews upon earth. 

The Apostle says, " The first man is of the 
earth, earthy ; the second man is the Lord from 
heaven," (1 Cor. xv. 47.) Griesbach has marked 
Kvgiog as of doubtful authority, but has retained it in 
the text. The omission of it would not alter the 
sense of the passage, which depends upon the op- 

* Glass, Phil. Sac. p. 353. where are some good remarks. 
Macknight, Prel, Ess. No. 16. 



106 Indirect Testimonies to the [chap, im- 
position between 1% ivgavov and m yvs. " The second 
Adam was from heaven/ 3 means the Lord from 
heaven, whether Ku^o? be inserted or not. And 
thus Christ's heavenly origin is opposed to the 
earthly origin of the first man. This plain decla- 
ration of our Saviour!s pre-existence is too adverse 
to the Socinians to be suffered to pass without an 
attempt to explain it away : they therefore render 
it, " The first man was from the ground, earthy ; 
the second man will be from heaven f* i. e. as 
they explain it, will descend from heaven to raise 
the dead *. The sentence is elliptical, and it seems 
evident that the same word must be supplied in both 
members; but 6 6 will be" does not suit the first, 
for (c the first man was, not loill be, from the earth," 
and therefore will be should not be adopted in the 
second member. To insert " will be," is " contrary 
" to the whole scope of the Apostle's reasoning, 
(< who, throughout the passage, is speaking of a 
" second Adam who is come; and is contrasting 
" the difference of His origin and nature with that 
e< of the first Adam, and the consequences of that 
" difference, as they bear upon the deeply interest- 
" ing doctrine of v. 22. ' As in Adam all die, even 
" so in Christ shall all be made alive +. 3 " Now 
with respect to our present purpose, it makes no 
sort of difference whether " is 33 or' <e was 33 is sup- 

* Unitarian Version* Bel sham, Calm Inquiry, p. 78. 

f See the admirable remarks of Bishop Burgess, The Bible 
and Nothing but the Bible, p. 88. et seq. and Dr. Magee, 
Post* to Append, p. 231. et seq. 



chap, in.] Divinity of Christ. 107 

plied,, both clearly pointing out the pre-existent 
and heavenly nature of Christ. 

2dly. Our Saviour is stated to come from God. 
<c Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he 
which is of God, 6 w nx^ol tou @£qu, he who is from 
God; he hath seen the Father/' (John vi. 46.) " I 
am from him, and he hath sent me," (John vii. 29.) 

" I PROCEEDED FORTH and CAME FROM GoD," (John 

viii. 42.) Jesus knowing " that he was come from 
God, and went to God/' (John xiii. 3.) " For the 
Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved 
me, and have believed that I came out from God. 
I came forth from the Father, and am come into 
the world : again, I leave the world and go to the 
Father," (John xvi. 27, 28.) That Christ went to 
the Father when he ascended from the earth is 
allowed on all hands, the last clause, then, must be 
taken in its literal sense : and if so, the former ones 
must likewise be taken in a literal sense : and " I 
came out from God," " I came forth from the 
Father," must mean that he actually left the glories 
of heaven, and appeared on earth in the likeness of 
men. If these passages are not to be understood 
literally, it is impossible to find expressions in the 
whole code of^revelation which may not be turned 
into figure or allegory. If any confidence is to be 
placed in the apostolic language, our Lord's pre- 
vious existence is here necessarily implied *. ; 

* " In haec orationis serie simul praeexistentiam Christi apud 
Patrem notari." Kuinoel, Comm. in loc. See Whitby Oro- 
John xiii. 3. Doederlein, Insi, Theol. Christ. § 249. 



108 Indirect Testimonies to the [chap. hi. 

But the Unitarian objects, that coming down 
from heaven, or coming from God, means no more 
than, having a commission from God to reveal his 
will to mankind. To common understandings, it 
appears unaccountably strange that Jesus should 
express his authority and commission in language 
so ambiguous. Why did he not tell us that by his 
coming from God he meant only his being com- 
missioned by him ? Why did he, in delivering a 
plain and simple truth, adopt a mode of expression 
so liable to be mistaken, and which, in fact, has 
been mistaken, if the Socinian opinion be well 
founded, by nearly the whole Christian world ? 
Such a proceeding, apparently so irreconcileable 
with the divine inspiration of the sacred Writers, 
would reduce their authority to almost nothing; 
for we should require a Glossa Ordinaria in order 
to come at their meaning. The Scriptures would 
cease to be a rule of faith and morals ; and we 
must be reduced to a state of unlimited scepticism, 
or, avoiding the anxiety of doubt, we should be 
compelled to repose in the bosom of an infallible 
church. 

In support of this extraordinary interpretation, 
Unitarians allege, that " to ascend ^ heaven" is a 
Hebrew form of expression, denoting the know- 
ledge of things mysterious and remote from com- 
mon apprehension. Hence they contend that ce to 
come down from heaven, or from God," means to 
be commissioned to reveal the will of God. To 
confirm their interpretation of the former phrase. 



chap, in.] Divinity of Christ. 109 

several passages are produced, which it will be 
proper to examine. " This commandment — is not 
in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go 
up for us to heaven and bring it unto us?" (Deut. 
xxx. 11, 12.) The meaning of this, taken in con- 
junction with the context is, that the law given to 
the Jews, was clearly revealed to them, not being 
" hidden from them, nor far off*;" and there is no 
reason why the expression, " who shall go up to 
heaven," is not to be taken in a literal sense, a sense 
alone applicable to the following verse. " Neither 
is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who 
shall go over the sea for us ?" — Again, we read in 
Proverbs xxx. 4. (( Who hath ascended up into 
heaven, or descended ?" If this verse contains an 
intimation of a Plurality in the divine Nature, as I 
have endeavoured to shew in another workf, the 
clause just cited will be parallel to John iii. 13. and 
no necessity exists for giving it a figurative sense. 
In the apocryphal book of Baruch iii. 29. we read, 
" Who hath gone up into heaven and taken her 
(i. e. wisdom) and brought her down from the 
clouds ?" It is unnecessary here to depart from the 
literal meaning, whether we are to understand this 
of divine or hypostatic wisdom. — " Who shall as- 
cend into heaven ?" says St. Paul, Rom. x. 6. This, 
I apprehend, is to be taken in its literal sense. It 
is evidently an adaptation of Deut. xxx. 14. to the 
Apostle's purpose, who personifies the Gospel, as 

* See Le Clerc, and particularly Roseinnuiler, in loc, 
f Translation of Prov. in loc. 



110 Indirect Testimonies to the [chap. hi. 

addressing unbelievers : from which it may be in- 
ferred that unbelievers in the apostolic age required 
a visible descent of Christ from heaven, and a visible 
ascent from the grave, or, at least some stronger 
proof, in order to believe in him. Such objections, 
the Apostle refutes in this personification *. 

Dean Magee argues, that, if <f to go up into 
heaven/' mean to learn and become acquainted 
with the counsels of God, it will follow, that " to 
come down from heaven," being precisely the oppo- 
" site of the former, must mean to unlearn or to 
" lose the knowledge of these counsels : so that, 
" so far from bringing and discovering those coun- 
" sels to mankind, our Lord must have disqualified 
iC himself from bringing any. Had indeed e as- 
" cending into heaven' meant ( bringing the truth 
" (any where) from men/ then ' descending from 
" heaven,* might justly be said to mean ' bringing 

* See Macknigbt. Rosenmiiller and Schleusner, uvctQaUa. 6. 
explain it figuratively to denote great difficulty. See Poli Synop. 
It may be observed that in John iii. 13. the first clause, " no 
man hath ascended up to heaven," is explained by very many 
commentators figuratively, viz, no one knows the secret coun- 
sels of God and divine things. To me it appears infinitely more 
probable that the praeterite is put for the present or future, viz. 
" no man ascendeth or goeth up, (so Pearce, Campbell, New- 
come,) or, no man shall ascend (so Glass, p. 304.) up to hea- 
ven," i. e. to gain a knowledge of celestial things. Pearce well 
explains it, " No man, except myself, ever was in heaven. I 
came from thence, and therefore I and I only am well qualified 
to tell you of heavenly things, and much more of such earthly 
things, as I have been speaking of." 



chap, in.] Divinity of Christ. Ill 

" it back to men.' Whatever, in short, ' ascending* 
" may be supposed to signify in any figure ; ' de- 
te scending' must signify the opposite, if the figure 
ct be abided by : and therefore if £ to ascend' be to 
sc learn, 1 to descend' must be to unlearn * " If 
to attribute such a meaning to ce coming down from 
heaven" is incongruous and absurd, it must be 
equally so to ascribe the sense of learning things 
mysterious and remote from common apprehensions 
to ee ascending up into heaven. 3 ' 

It is, therefore, probable that se to ascend to 
heaven/' is never used in the Scriptures, otherwise 
than in its literal signification. But supposing that 
it is, it by no means follows, that " to come down 
from heaven" must also be taken in a figurative 
sense. No application of it in such a sense, except- 
ing the passages in question, has been produced. 
It is sometimes so opposed to going up into heaven, 
that it cannot be understood in any other way than 
of a literal descent ; as John iii. 13. xiii. 3. xvi. 28. 
And what is decisive of the "question is, that such an 
expression is never applied to any other than to 
Christ. Neither Moses, nor any of the prophets 
are ever said to come down from heaven, which is 
very singular if it meant only to receive a commis- 
sion from God. Its being limited to our Saviour is 
a strong reason for believing that it is applicable to 
him in a peculiar manner, which it can only be in 

* Disc, on Atonement, Post, to Ap, p. 87. See also Renneli's 
Animadversions, p. 76. 



1 12 Indirect Testimonies to the [chap. hi. 

its literal sense, expressive of a real and actual 
descent from heaven. 

Again, to prove that to come from God means to 
be commissioned by him, the Unitarian appeals to 
our Lord's words, " The baptism of John, whence 
was it ? from heaven, or of men," where, it is as- 
serted, that " coming from heaven" is equivalent 
to coming with divine authority, (Matt. xxi. 25. 
Mark xi. 30. Luke xx. 4.) This plausible objec- 
tion will easily be obviated, when it is considered, 
that our Redeemer is speaking of doctrines, not of 
persons ; and his question is to this effect, Was the 
baptism of repentance, which John preached, made 
known to him by inspiration of God, or was it 
the invention of men # . This is confirmed by the 
manner of expression, as Christ does not ask, whe- 
ther John be from heaven, but whether his baptism 
be from thence. This passage is very similar to 
Acts v. 38. u If this counsel, or this work, be of 
men, it will come to nought ; but if it be of God, 
ye cannot overthrow it." But such expressions as 
these are not parallel to the texts describing Christ's 
coming <from heaven : what is required to be of 
service to the Socinian cause, is an express appli- 
cation of the same phrase to a person; but such an 
example is not to be found in the whole sacred 

* " Baptismus, quo nomine synecdochice intelligit etiam 
doctrinam totamque ejus functionem." Poli Synop. in loc. 
te Totum munus, institutionem ac doctrinam Johannis baptistae." 
Schleusner. 



chap, nr.] Divinity of Christ. 1 £§ 

Volume, no one being represented as coming' down 
from heaven, but the Son of God. 

One text, I am aware, is appealed to as an irre- 
fragable proof of the Unitarian exposition, '<6iss. 
John i. 6. " There was a man sent from God, 
whose name was John." This, it is urged, clearly 
evinces, that to come from God is to be commis- 
sioned by him. If Jesus was sent from God, so 
was John the Baptist: if the former came down 
from heaven, so did the latter ; but as John did not 
personally descend from heaven, so it is concluded 
Christ did not. This reasoning will be allowed to 
be fallacious, if it can be shewn that it contradicts 
other Scriptures. Now, our Lord says, John vi. 46. 
(C No one hath seen the Father, save he who is 
from God, He, qZtq$ 3 hath seen the Father;" namely, 
this one person, for it is singular, and no one else, 
hath seen the Father ; therefore, if Christ was this 
person, as will not be disputed, John could not be 
" sent from God" in the same manner that Christ 
was. What does the Baptist say of himself? Does 
he confirm the Socinian gloss ? Speaking of Christ 
and himself he observes, " He that cometh from 
above is above all : he that is of the earth is earthly, 
and speaketh of the earth : he that cometh from 
heaven is above all," (John iii. 31.) Here John 
contrasts his earthly origin with Christ's heavenly 
origin : Christ is tc from above," he {c from the 
earth," U t5? y?? : Christ is " above all/ which he 
could not be, if every other prophet came in like 
manner from heaven, and from above ; and there- 

I 



114 indirect- Testimonies to the [chap. m. 

fore if John was sent from God, it cannot be in the 
same sense that Christ was sent from him, which is 
enough to silence the objection *. 

The numerous declarations, therefore, that Christ 
came from God, and came down from heaven, are 
to be taken according- to their literal import. This 
will also further appear from the testimonies to our 
Lords pre-existence which will immediately come 
under review ; for if he had a real existence before 
he came into the world, we must understand his 
coming down from heaven of a local descent. 

3dly. John viiL 23. " Ye are from beneath ; I 
am from above : ye are of (la, from,) this world ; 
t am not of (U, from,) this world." The sense,, 
according to Rosenmiiller, Kuinoel, Tittman, and 
others, is, Ye approve and follow the perverse 
things of this world ; I speak and act in a manner 
agreeable to God. This is true; but it is the in- 
ference our Lord intended to be drawn from his 
words, not the meaning of the words themselves. 
His argument depends upon the circumstance that 
he was from above, and they from the world ; and 
unless it be meant of a superiority as to his origin, 
the remark is quite irrelevant. This will be evident 
by examining the context. 

4thly. Ephes. iv. 9, 10. u Now that he as- 
cended^ what is it but that he also descended 
first into the lower parts of the earth ? He that 
descended is the same also that ascended up far 



* See Nares, Rem. on the Unitarian Version, p. 93. et seq. 



ghap. in.] Divinity of Chr hi. 115 

above all heavens, that he might fill all things.' 5 
This relates to our Lord's c: coming down from 
" heaven to the earth, his taking on him the human 
" nature, his living in the lowest condition, and his 
" dying an ignominious death ; even as its opposite, 
" he ascended on high, denotes his resurrection and 
cc glorious ascension into heaven, his sitting on the 
" right hand of God, and his having angels, and 
{C authorities, and powers, subjected to him*" 

5thly» John i. 15. 30. C( John bare witness of 
him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I 
spake, He that cometh after me, is preferred be- 
fore me ; for he was before me," The only ques- 
tion is, whether this, and especially the last clause, 
is to be interpreted of a priority in dignity or in 
time. The reasons which seem to prove beyond a 
doubt that the words refer to a priority of time, 
are ; First, The clause, 11 He that cometh after 
me," ottio-u f*ou, certainly relates to time ; and Christ 
came after John into the womb at his conception, 
into the world at his nativity, and unto his office at 
his baptism. The two latter clauses, therefore, must 
naturally relate to time. Secondly, The verbs are 
prseterite ; and though yiyovtv may be translated in 
the present, as the perfect tense sometimes is, yet 
m does not so well admit such an enallogy. Had it 
referred to dignity, it would not be, " he was before 
me," but 44 he is before me," The verb w is 
used in the first verse of this chapter to denote the 



* Macknight ; see Chandler in loc* 
1% 



1 1 6 Indirect Testimonies to the [chap. nr. 

eternal pre-existence of the Logos. Thirdly, tp- 
vpoa-Siv is never used in reference to dignity or 
authority, either in the Septuagint or the New 
Testament, but sometimes to place, and most fre- 
quently to time. Fourthly, 7rp« T0 ? is often used by 
St. John to signify priority of time; as ch. i. 41. 
v. 4. viii. 7. xv. 18. xx. 4. 8. For these reasons, the 
verse should be rendered, u He that cometh after 
me was before me ; certainly (on, certe, profecto, 
Schleusner, 11.) he was before me:" a plain de- 
claration of his pre-existence *. 

6thly. John vi. 62. ' ; What and if ye shall see 
the Son of Man ascend up where he was before," 
aVou 7iy to irpoTSfov. Here are no various readings to 
make an empty parade, and if the words are not to 
be taken in the literal sense, language affords no 
expressions which are indubitably to be literally un- 
derstood, and which cannot be tortured into figure. 
The text is a declaration of Christ's pre-existence, 

* " Ante me fuit, eerie me prior fuit, repetitur aliis verbis 
eadem sententia quae prrecessit, quo fortius inculcetur." Kui- 
odel, who ably defends the interpretation here adopted. This 
observation of the learned commentator completely removes 
Dr. Campbell's chief objection, that to consider both clauses 
in reference to time makes a tautology. It does so : but this 
tautology is emphatical ; naturally arising from the importance 
of the doctrine it was designed to enforce. liosenmiiller, 
Schleusner, and Tittman, adopt the same interpretation : and 
it is supported by the Vulgate, Syriae, Arabic, and according 
to the Polyglott Latin by the Persic and iEthiopic versions. 
Bat Dr. Hales renders it, '* hath been (or existed) before me, 
for he was my chief." New Analysis, vol. ii, p. l /23. 



chap, iii.] Divinity of Christ. I If 

too plain to require illustration, too express for can- 
dour to evade ; and may, therefore, be left, without 
comment, to the judgment of the reader *. 

7thly. John viii. 58. <( Jesus said unto them, 
Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham 
was, I am." The obvious sense of these words 
is, Before Abraham, the person of whom ye speak, 
was born, I had a real being and existence, in 
which I have continued until now. That this is 
the true meaning-, appears from the following con- 
siderations. 

First, Abraham has never any other signification 
in the Scriptures, than such as denotes the patriarch 
so called. 

Secondly, This interpretation alone makes our 
Lord give a satisfactory answer to the Jews. He 
had observed to them, " Your father Abraham re- 
joiced to see my day ; and he saw it, and was glad. 
Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet 
fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham ?" 
(v. 56, 57.) To which Jesus answers, " Verily, 
verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, or was 
born, I am." The question refers clearly to the 
time of our Lord's existence; they supposed him 
to have asserted that he had a being prior to Abra- 

* The Socinian conjecture that Christ was taken up into 
heaven, as Moses was into the Mount, to receive his instruc- 
tions, and came down again to preach, scarcely deserves men- 
tion, as it rests upon no evidence. Bishop Pearson's remarks 
upon it are admirable : On the Creed, vol. i. p. 177. See also 
Bishop Sfillingfleet, Vindication, cap. viii- 



118 Indirect Testimonies to the [chap. iii. 

ham ; and they inquire how that was possible, since 
he could not be yet fifty years old. As the question 
propounded evidently speaks of a personal existence, 
the answer must do so likewise *. If it did not, it 
would be an evasion, not an answer : and there- 
fore our Saviour must be understood to assert, that 
he actually existed before the time of Abraham. 

Thirdly, The Jews understood the reply to denote 
that our Saviour had a real existence before Abra- 
ham was born ; for, regarding it as blasphemy, 
te they took up stones to cast at him." If the words 
did not literally imply priority of existence, at least, 
how could they have so strongly excited the indig- 
nation of the Jews ? Nay, more, does not this 
very action of his enemies shew that something else 
was implied in his words besides priority of exist- 
ence ? Would the assertion of this, or of his su- 
periority to Abraham have been sufficient ground 
for their attempting to stone him ? He had, in fact, 
made this assertion before (v. 52, 53. )/without having 
impelled the Jews to inflict so severe a punishment. 
To what cause, then, can their sudden indignation 
be imputed, except their supposing him to have 
been guilty of blasphemy ? And if this was the 
case, they must have inferred from his assertion of 
a priority of existence to Abraham, that he actually 
made himself equal with God. 

» ( < In objectione Judseorum sermo erat de existentia; ergo 
etiam in responsione de existentia serroo esse debet." Kosea- 
muller, Scholia in he. 



chap, in ] Divinity oj Christ. H9 

This reasoning" is much strengthened by the cir- 
cumstance, that it is very probable our Lord applied 
to himself the incommunicable name of God. It is 
the opinion of some able writers that the substan- 
tive verb EI'MI, in this construction contains an 
allusion to the name by which God made himself 
known to Moses, Exod. iii. 14. I am that I am ; 
consequently, that our Lord, by assuming the title 
of the great I am, attributed to himself proper 
divinity. Others, however, only consider it as the 
present tense put for the praeterite, without any 
allusion to the name of God ; at the same time 
denoting a priority of existence, and a continuation 
of it to the present time # . Be this as it may, it is 
certain, from the indignation of the Jews, that his 
words contained something very obnoxious to them, 
which could be nothing less than the assertion of 
his pre-existence, if not of his divinity. 

Although these reasons appear to substantiate the 
interpretation above given of this important text, 
Socinians attempt to explain it in different ways. 
Its meaning, they say, may be, " Verily, verily, I 
say unto you, before Abraham shall perfectly be- 
come, that which is signified in his name, the 

* See Tittman, Meletem. Sacra in Job. p. 858. and Pearson 
On the Creed, vol. ii. p. 116. who has proved, by several ex- 
amples, that the present of HyA is used by St. John for the past, 
as John xiv. 9. xv. 27. vi. 24. Wetstein, Dr. Carpenter, and 
others, contend that the true rendering is " I am he but 
that their references do not bear them out. is fully shows by 
•Veysie, Defence of Preservative, p. 67. 



ISO Indirect Testimonies to the [chap, in, 

father of many nations, before the Gentiles shall 
come in, I am." More recent disciples of the same 
school, considering this, as it really is, a very forced 
and unnatural interpretation, explain it of a pre- 
existence in the divine foreknowledge and appoint- 
ment : " I say unto you, before Abraham was born, 
" 1 am, or rather, I was he/' i. e. the Christ. " Be- 
" fore that eminent patriarch was brought into 
u being, my existence and appearance under the 
t£ character of the Messiah at this period, and in 
{C these circumstances, was so completely arranged, 
" and so irrevocably fixed in the immutable coun- 
" sels and purposes of God, that in this sense, I 
" may be said even then to have existed f/' 

To both these glosses, it may be objected, first, 
that they require a word to be supplied which is 
indispensably necessary to make out the sense. 
The former supposes an ellipsis of the word " Abra- 
ham," and the latter of " Christ:" in both cases 
arbitrarily, since the context, so far from necessarily 
leading us to supply them, as generally happens in 
elliptical expressions, seems decidedly against it. 
In the one case, the same word is made the subject 
and predicate of the proposition, which is unusual, 
if not wholly unexampled, namely, " before Abra- 
ham shall become Abraham ■;" and in the other, 
Sl Christ" must be supplied without any warrant 
from what precedes or follows f . Secondly, accord- 

* Belsham, Calm Inquiry, p. 56. 

$■ " Hoc loco neque in serie orationis, neque in natura rei 
<est aliquid, quod permittat subintelligere nomen Messias; 



chap, iti.] Divinity of Christ. 121 

ing to both these glosses, the words are not taken 
in their literal and natural sense; and why should 
our Lord express a very simple idea in so forced 
and strange a manner? Is it not more rational to 
understand the words in their plain signification ? 
Thirdly, they represent Christ, with great assevera- 
tion, declaring what is nothing to the purpose of 
which he speaks. The question of the Jews re- 
ferred, as has been observed, to his personal exist- 
ence before Abraham ; but his answer, according to 
both these expositions, is entirely irrelevant to the 
question proposed by them. Fourthly, they repre- 
sent the Jews foolishly exasperated at language 
which any of them might have spoken as well as he. 
If either of the Socinian interpretations be correct, 
Christ only spoke what was true of every human 
being- as well as himself, and therefore nugatory. 
These reasons shew satisfactorily that the Unitarian 
expositions are erroneous. 

Sthly. John xvii. 5. (( And now, O Father, 
glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory 

Which I HAD WITH THEE BEFORE THE WORLD WAS :" 

that is, exalt me to that glory and felicity which I 
possessed with thee, in my divine nature, before the 
world existed, and of which I divested myself when 
I became incarnate. Surely this, if any language 
can, affords an irrefragable proof of Christ's pre- 

neque hie sermo est de dignitate Jesu Messiana, sed de ejus 
existentia ante Abraharaum." Tittman, Mektem. Sac. in J oh, 
p. 354. 



J22 Indirect Testimonies to the [chap. in. 

existence. " It is a plain solemn address to the 
* ( Deity/' says Dr. Barwood, ct that, since he had 
" glorified his name upon earth, he would be pleased 
(C to re- admit him to that state of glory and happi- 
" ness which he had possessed in his presence be- 
u fore the creation of the world. Upon this single 
" text 1 lay my finger. Here I posit my system, 
" And if plain words be designedly employed to 
" convey any determinate meaning; if the modes 
" of human speech have any precision ; I am con- 
" vinced that this plain declaration of our Lord, in 
" an act of devotion, exhibits a great and impor- 
<e tant truth, which can never be subverted or 
" invalidated by any accurate and satisfactory cri- 
'* ticism 

According to the Socinian exposition, the sense 
is, " Glorify thou me with thine own self, with the 
glory I had with thee, i. e. in thy immutable pur- 
pose and decree, " before the world was in other 
words, exalt me to that glory which thou didst 
decree, before the world was, to give me. This 
gloss rests upon the sense given to J? eT^ov va^aL <tqi, 
" which I had with thee/' viz. in thy decree, or 
which thou didst destine or decree to me : but this 
is destitute of even a shadow of proof ; no example 
can be produced where ilyov na^oi aoi means 41 which 
thou didst decree to me/' Neither does it receive 
any confirmation from v. 22. in which Christ says, 
" the glory which thou gavest me, I have given to 

* Socinian Scheme, p, 46. 



chap* in.] Divinity of Christ. 123 

them:" whereby "glory/' Grotius, Whitby, Pearce, 
&c. understand the power of working miracles ; 
but probably it means " eternal felicity/' which 
Christ promised to his faithful followers ; the pre- 
terite being* used for the future, in the style of pro- 
phecy, to denote the certainty of the event. This 
derives great support from v. 24*: but whatever 
it may signify, the argument for the pre-existence 
of Christ does not depend upon it ; and " glory/' 
let its meaning be the same as in v. 24. or different, 
he possessed with the Father, before the foundation 
of the world, which demonstrates his pre-existence. 
9thly. John xvii. 24. " For thou lovest me 

BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD." This, like 

the former text, the Socinians expound of Christ's 
being selected, in the eternal counsels of God, to 
be the messenger of peace to mankind ; and with 
as little reason. It is a plain declaration of our 
Lord's pre existence. 

JOthly. 2 Cor. viii. 9. See Magee, Post. toAp. 
p. 129. Wardlaw, Disc. p. 155. Heb. xii. 25. See 
Magee, ibid. p. 207. As these are not so direct 
evidences to the pre-existence of our Redeemer, it 
is unnecessary to enlarge upon them, in many 

* " Dcclarat Christus v. 22. 24. sectatores suos hoc nomine 
dignos, consecuturos esse felicitatera perennem (quam et aiias 
iis promisit, Matt. xix. 28. Luc. xxii. 30. Job. xiv. 3, &c.) banc 
vero 3o|av comparat cum sua, affirmat eos consecuturos &>f«p 
sibi a patre datam, tempore quidem et gradu inferiorem, ean- 
dem tamen genere et loco, wapa ©tj." Kuinoel, in Jok. xvii. 5. 
whose excellent note deserves an attentive perusal. See also 
Schleusner, 6. 



124 Indirect 'Testimonies to the [chap, hi, 

other places the same doctrine is delivered, as for 
instance in those passages quoted and commented 
upon in ch. i. and vi. for if Christ be God, and the 
efficient creator of the world, he must have existed 
from eternity. As it would be an useless repetition 
to review them here, the reader is referred to those 
chapters. 

From the texts examined in this section it is evi- 
dent that Christ had a real existence before he was 
conceived in the Virgin ; that he was really in 
heaven, and truly descended from thence, and came 
into the world from the Father. It may be doubted 
whether his consubstantial divinity can be inferred 
from this ; yet if he actually existed before his appear- 
ance in the flesh, it follows that he was not a mere 
man. This argument, therefore, though it may not 
confute the Arians, ought to silence the Unitarians, 
who believe in his simple humanity. But the argu- 
ment, perhaps, goes somewhat farther. We have 
seen, not only that Christ " came down from hea- 
ven," and " came from God;" but that he was in 
heaven while speaking on earth, which could only 
be in in his divine nature, (No. 1.) ; that he asserts 
his existence before Abraham, in such a way as 
seems to imply his divinity, (No. 7.) ; and that he 
had glory with the Father before the world was, 
which appears to intimate his deity: it is, therefore, 
no unfair inference to conclude, from such passages, 
that he was really God. I do not mean to insist 
upon this, though, in my opinion, it is a legitimate 
conclusion : but this, at least, must be allowed, that 



chap, in.] Divinity of Christ. 125 

the pre-existence of Christ is incompatible with the 
hypothesis of his mere humanity. 

V. Matt. xii. 6. " But I say unto you, That iu 
this place is one greater than the temple." The 
temple at Jerusalem was dedicated to the service of 
Jehovah,, and sanctified by his immediate presence : 
how then, could our Saviour represent himself as 
greater than this temple, unless he were the Lord 
of the temple, whose coming* was foretold by 
Malachi iii. 1. ? Now, the Lord of any temple is 
the Divinity that dwells in it. Sect. iii. of this 
chapter, p. 101. 

VI. Matt. xii. 8. " For the Son of Man is 
Lord even of the sabbath day." The Jewish 
sabbath was of divine appointment, consecrated 
and commanded to be kept holy by the law of 
Moses ; hence no one could have a right to relax or 
annul the commandment, but God who first im- 
posed it. Yet Christ is the Lord of the sabbath ; 
i. e. can dispense with the obligation of it, and 
therefore God *. 

VII. Matt. xvii. 25, 26. (( What thinkest thou, * 
Simon ? of whom do the kings of the earth take 

* " Ego etiam Sabbati (ut templi) Dominus sum, i. e. pos- 
sum dispensare ab observatione Sabbati." Rosenmuller. This 
and the preceding section, it is acknowledged, may admit a 
different interpretation, (see Grotius and Kuinoei) but the view 
here taken appears to me correct. 



t&f Indirect Testimonies to the [chap. in. 

custom or tribute ? of their own children or of 
strangers ? Peter said unto him, Of strangers, 
Jesus said unto him. Then are the children free/' 
The occasion of this discourse was, that those who 
received the didrachma, the half shekel annually 
paid by the Jews above twenty years of age for 
the service of the temple *, sc came to Peter, and 
said, Doth not your master pay tribute?" (v. 24.) 
Upon which our Saviour reasons, If earthly kings 
do not receive tribute from their children, then am 
I, who am the Son of God, excused by their cus- 
tom from paying any to God f . The whole force 
of the argument depends upon our Lord's being 
truly and properly the Son of God ; that is, stand- 
ing in the same relation to God, as the children do 
to earthly kings. His claim of exemption rests upon 
his being the Son of God, in a sense not applicable 
to a mere man, which amounts to an assumption of 
divinity. 

VIII. Matt, xviii. 18. " Verily I say unto you, 
whatsoever ye shall bind upon earth, shall be bound 
in heaven ; and whatsoever ye shall loose upon 
earth, shall be loosed in heaven." (i These words 
" are authoritative ; and he that spake them must 
" have uncontrolled power in heaven, otherwise 
<% they would be nugatory. ' Shall be bound in 

* Jennings' Jewish Antiq. lib. i. cap. ii, Ikenius s Antig. 
Heb. P. II. cap. viii. § 37. Wetstein in be. 
+ Bishop Pearce upon the place. 



chap, in.] Divinity oj Christ. 127 

" heaven' are terms altogether unconditional ; they 
s< are the words of authority, ordaining- what shall 
u be in heaven. Bat what man, what angel, what 
" being, of ever so exalted an order, can ordain 
(e what shall be in heaven except God alone. But 
te it is the Son of God that hath ordained thus, 
" therefore the Son of God is God **" 

IX. Matt. xxii. 42—45. " Jesus asked them, 
saying, What think ye of Christ ? Whose son is 
he? They say unto him, The son of David. He 
saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call 
him, Lord, saying, the Lord said unto my Lord., 
Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies 
thy footstool ? If David then call him Lord, how 
is he his son V* This argument, urged by our Sa- 
viour, is taken from the custom of the Hebrews of 
addressing the title " Lord" only to superiors, and 
sometimes out of courtesy to equals, but never to 
inferiors f. An independent monarch, such as 

* Hawtrey's GtettfyuTrof , p. 8. 

t See Campbell's Prel. Diss. 7. § 6. who has well illustrated 
the passage above cited from Matthew, § 8, 9. Some, by an 
alteration of the points, have proposed to render >ns^ in 
Ps. ex. 1. which Jesus quotes, not " to my Lord," as in E. T„ 
but " to the Lord." (Hales's Dissertations, p. 206.) This 
cannot be admitted, as all the ancient versions render it *' to my 
Lord," except the Targum, which has " by my Word and it 
would destroy the force of our Saviour's argument. The re- 
ceived version is therefore right, or our Lord misunderstood 
the Psalm. See Doederlein, Scholia in Ps. ex. and Kuindel in 
Matt. xxii. 41. 

6 



128 Indirect Testimonies to the [chap. nr. 

David, acknowledged do lord or master but God ; 
far less would he bestow this title upon a son or 
descendant, who, from that relationship, was in 
some degree an inferior. If, then, the Messiah was 
to be David's son, and David call him Lord, David 
must have acknowledged him as his superior; but 
no mere man could be his superior, or at least would 
be acknowledged by him as his superior; and there- 
fore the Messiah must have been superhuman, ce- 
lestial, and divine. 

X. Matt, xxiii. 37. " O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, 
thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which 
are sent unto thee, how often would I have ga- 
thered thy children together, even as a hen 
gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye 
would not !" This declaration cannot surely be 
limited to the occasional exhortations and warnings 
which Christ gave during his appearance in the 
flesh. His ministry lasted, at the most, only a few 
years, and the expression, " how often," cannot, 
with propriety, be restricted to that period. The 
preceding clause, and the entire context evince that 
it relates to the whole history of God s providence 
towards the Jewish people. And if the phrase 
" how often would I have gathered thy children 
together/' refer to the general dealings of God with 
the Jews, it follows that it was Christ who raised up 
the prophets, and commissioned them that were 
sent unto the Hebrew nation, and by whose in- 
strumentality he s< would have gathered the chil- 



chap, in.] Divinity of Christ. 129 

dren of Jerusalem together:" which plainly points 
him out to be the God of the Israelitish people. 

Supposing, however, that the expressions are to 
be restricted to the time of our Lord's public minis- 
try, yet will they contain an intimation of his super- 
human power. What did he intend by the imagery 
in the latter part of the verse, " how often would I 
have gathered thy children together, even as a hen 

GATHERETH HER CHICKENS UNDER HER WINGS ?" Does 

it not evidently imply a guardian care and protec- 
tion ? Must it not denote something analogous to 
the protecting care of a bird brooding over her 
young? But how could a mere human prophet 
assume such a power to himself ? It would have 
been impious arrogance in Jesus, had he been only 
a man, to declare that he often attempted to collect 
the whole Jewish nation under his fostering care 
and protection. Our Lord, therefore, intimates his 
sovereign power in having often offered his protec- 
tion to a people, who could only be shielded from 
harm, by the outstretched wings of Omnipotence, 
plumed with divine mercy and benevolence. 

XI. Luke i. 16. " And thou, child, shalt be 
called the prophet of the Highest ; for thou shalt 
go before the face of the Lord to prepare his 
ways ; to give knowledge of salvation unto his 
people." This was spoken of John the Baptist, 
who was Christ's forerunner ; therefore Christ is 
here called the Highest, and the Lord. Again, 
from Matt. xi. 10, we find that this is a citation 

K 



130 Indirect Testimonies to the [chap* hi. 
from Malachi iii. 1. " Behold I send my messenger 

BEFORE THY FACE, TO PREPARE THY WAY BEFORE 

thee;" in the original Hebrew of the Prophet it is, 
" I send my messenger to prepare the way before 
me/' i. e. Jehovah : Christ, therefore, whose ways 
the Baptist prepared, is Jehovah. 

The remarks of the excellent Jones of Nayland, 
on comparing Mai. iii. 1. with Matt, xi. 10. will 
gratify the reader. " As this prophecy is worded 
" by St. Matthew, as also by St. Mark (i. 2.) and 
" Luke (vii. 27.) there is a personal distinction 
" between Him who sends his messenger, and 
<c Christ before whom the messenger is sent. I 
" send my messenger to prepare thy way before 
ec thee. But the prophet himself has it thus : / 
(C send my messenger to prepare the way before 
e£ me. Yet the Evangelist and Prophet, are both 
" equally correct and true. For though Christ be 
" a different Person, yet is he one and the same 
ss God with the Father. And hence it is, that with 
(C the Evangelist, the Persons are not confounded ; 
" with the Prophet, the Godhead is not divided*/' 

In the passage of Luke we also read that the 
Baptist was sc to give the knowledge of salvation 
unto his people." Jesus Christ, then, is here not 
only called the Highest, and the Lord, but the 
Jews are styled his people ; and in the same man- 
ner, Christ is said by the evangelist St. John, to 
have " come to his own," ch. i. 11. The Jews, 



* Catholic Doet, of the Trin, cap. i, § 8. 



chap, hi.] Divinity of Christ 131 

however, are constantly represented in Scripture as 
the chosen, or peculiar people of God ; and as they 
are stated by St. Luke and St. John to be Christ's 
people, he must consequently be the God of the 
Jews. See sect, iih prop, fourth, No. 2. 

XIL Luke I 33. " He, Jesus, shall reign over 
the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom 
there shall be no end." I have produced this text, 
because it is considered by many as a proof of our 
Saviour's deity : but perhaps it should be taken as 
only expressing, in a popular manner, that his 
government will continue to the end of time. And 
this appears the more probable, as we are told the 
end will come, " when he shall deliver up the king- 
dom to God, even the Father," (1 Cor, xv. 24.) ; 
namely, his mediatorial kingdom. 

XIII. Luke iih 23. " And Jesus himself began 
to be about thirty years of age, being (as was sup- 
posed) the son of Joseph, &c." The parenthesis 
implies that, though supposed to be the son of 
Joseph, he was not so in reality. Here is an allu- 
sion to his divine origin *. 

XIV. John ii. 19. 21. " Jesus answered and 
said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three 
days I will raise it up — He spake of the temple of 
his body." If Jesus were only man, how could he 



* See Nares, Remarks^ p. 22. and Campbell in he* 

x2 



132 Indirect Testimonies to the [chap. hi. 

act when he was dead ? and how could he raise his 
body ? A dead man can neither act of himself } 
nor by a power communicated to him by the Al- 
mighty ; for, in the latter case, he could not con- 
tinue dead : but Jesus here declares, that, when his 
human part was dead, he would raise it up, which 
implies that he had a real being, distinct from his 
human nature, and that he was divine, since God 
alone can raise the dead. This passage is incapable 
of any rational explication, except on the Trini- 
tarian system. The body of the man Christ Jesus 
was laid in the grave, and his human soul went to 
the common receptacle of departed spirits ; but the 
divine Nature of Christ suffered no change, and by 
the omnipotent power inherent in this Nature, he 
raised his body, and united it to himself by taking 
the manhood into God. 

XV. John iii. 16. " God so loved the world 
that he gave his only-begotten Son." Ephes. v. 25. 
" Christ also loved the church, and gave himself 
for it." The same act being ascribed to the Father 
and to the Son proves their co-equality. 

XVI. John iv. 42. " — this is indeed the Christ 
the Saviour of the world." The same is attested 
in many places: cc him hath God exalted to be a 
prince and a Saviour," (Acts v. 31.) ; " Peace 
from the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour," (Tit. i. 4. 
so 2 Tim. i. 10. Tit. ii. 13. iii. 6. &c.) Yet 
Jehovah claims this title as peculiar to himself. 



chap, in.] Divinity of Christ. 133 

" I even I am Jehovah, and beside me there is no 
Saviour/' (Isa. xliii. 11.) Jehovah calls himself 
" a just God, and A Saviour, there is none beside 
me/' (Isa. xlv. 31.) " We trust in the living God, 
who is the Saviour of all men," (1 Tim. iv. 10. so 
ch. i. 1. ii. 3. Tit. i. 3. ii. 10. iii. 4. &c.) This surely 
identifies the attributes of Christ with those of 
Jehovah. 

The strength of this argument lies not so much in 
the title of Saviour, which indeed is sometimes given 
to men (Judg. iii. 9. 15.) in the Hebrew, as in the 
circumstances with which it is accompanied. Jeho- 
vah says by the prophet Hosea (xiii. 4.) ec There is 
no Saviour beside me yet Christ is " the Saviour 
of the world," (John iv. 42. 1 John iv. 14.) Jehovah 
ee shall save the souls of the needy," (Ps. lxxii. 13.) 
yet Christ " is able to save to the uttermost all who 
come unto God by him," (Heb. vii. 25.) He was 
called Jesus, because " he shall save his people from 
their sins/' (Matt. i. 22.) Now, to have a people, 
which are really his, a peculiar people, to save them 
from their sins, and to bring them to eternal salva- 
tion, so far transcends the ability and power of a 
creature, that we are constrained to acknowledge 
the Being who performs this to be divine. " Israel 
shall be saved in the Lord ( Jehovah ) with an ever- 
lasting salvation," (Isa. xlv. 17.) Deity alone can 
be the author of everlasting salvation ; " the living 
God is the Saviour of all men," (1 Tim. iv. 10.) yet 
we know that Christ is " the author of eternal salva- 
tion to all who obey him/' (Heb. v. 9.) iS Neither is 



134 Indirect Testimonies to the [chap, hi 

there salvation in any other : for there is none other 
name under heaven given among men whereby we 
must be saved/ (Acts iv. 12.) Such a Saviour must 
be divine : and when we compare these and similar 
declarations with others which describe Jehovah as 
alone mighty to save, and the only Saviour, the con- 
clusion is evident that Christ must be Jehovah. Nor 
is this without confirmation from the New Testa- 
ment itself, St. Paul speaks of " our great God 
and Saviour, Jesus Christ/' (Tit. ii. 13.) expressly 
declaring our Saviour to be God. 

XVII. John v. 17- " My Father worketh 
hitherto, and I work." The occasion of these 
words was a miracle which Jesus had performed on 
the Sabbath-day, which gave the Jews so much 
offence that they sought to slay him. " But Jesus 
answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and 
I work." The argument consists in this, that he 
had the same right to work on the Sabbath as the 
Father, which he could not possibly have, unless he 
were equally a divine Person. se My Father worketh 
hitherto," says he, i. e. though he rested from his 
work of creation, he continues to govern and pre- 
serve the universe, on the Sabbath as well as at all 
other times; u and I work," i. e. I do the same ; I 
have an equal right to work on the Sabbath. His 
joining himself with the Father in this manner, 
clearly infers a joint power and authority. Thus 
Christ vindicates himself by the example of the 
Father, who works in all seasons, claiming a right 



chap, iil] Divinity of Christ. 135 

to do the same, and in that very claim asserting an 
equality. In this light our Lord's words were 
understood by the Jews; for they " sought the more 
to kill him, because he had not only broken the 
Sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, 
making himself equal with God/' (v. 18.) 

XVIII. John x. 37, 38. " If I do not the 
works of my Father, belie ve me not. But if I do, 
though ye believe not me, believe the works ; that 
ye may know and believe, that the Father is in me 
and I in him/' This is part of our Lord's answer 
to a charge of blasphemy, that he, being a man, 
made himself God, (v. 33.) So far from denying 
that he claimed divinity, he enforces his claim by 
declaring that he performed the works of his Father: 
and the works of God can be no other than those 
which God doeth, those which can only be per- 
formed by divine power*. His argument is to 
this effect, Though ye do not believe on my own 
authority what I say concerning my personal dig- 
nity; yet ye ought to believe the mighty works 
which I perform, for as they can only be performed 
by divine power, they are the strongest evidence of 
the truth of what I have asserted concerning my 
superior nature. In this way, his reasoning was 

* " Opera Patris met, i. e. quae Patri, sive Deo, sunt pro- 
pria : quae a nemine alio fieri queunt : opera uon modo aequalia, 
sed et eadem numero utpote ex una eademquepotentiaprofeeta." 
Poli Synop. To this effect Rosenmuller,, Tittman, and KuindeL 



136 Indirect Testimonies to the [chap. hi. 

understood by the Jews, for " they sought again to 
take him, but he escaped out of their hand," 
(v. 39.) 

XIX. John xi. 4. Jesus said, "This sickness is 
not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the 
Son of God might be glorified thereby.'* This 
observation our Saviour made upon hearing of the 
sickness of Lazarus : and the mode of expression 
implies, that the glory of the Father and of the Son 
is the same ; that what redounds to the glory of the 
one, redounds to the glory of the other. That 
which was " for the glory of God," was for this 
purpose also " that the Son of God might be glo- 
rified thereby." The glory of Both is proposed, 
without any discrimination, as the ultimate end of 
the work ; and therefore it is concluded that they 
are united in one essence, the glory equal, the 
majesty co-eternal. 

XX. John xiv. 7 — 10. " If ye had known me, 
ye should have known my Father also : and from 
henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. 
Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, 
and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I 
been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not 
known me, Philip ? He that hath seen me hath 
seen the Father : and how sayest thou then, Shew 
us the Father ?" I am willing to accept Dr. Clarke's 
exposition : " These words," says he, u do not 



chap, in.] Divinity of Christ. 137 

" signify, that he who hath seen the Person of 
" Christ, hath seen the Person of the Father: for 
" then it would follow, that the Man Christ, or 
" Christ in his human state (which was all that 
" was visible in the literal sense,) was the Person of 
cc the Father* But the meaning is : He that hath 
u seen the Power of Christ, hath seen the Power 
" of the Father ; he that hath known the Will of 
" Christ, hath known the Will of the Father : for 
<e so our Saviour himself explains it, ch. xii. 44,45. 
" ' He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, 
" but on Him that sent me ; and he that seeth me, 
" seeth him that sent me And ver. 10. of this 
" chapter; ' 1 speak not of myself; but the Father 
" that dwelleth in me, he doth the works/ The 
ce Person of the Father ' no man hath seen, nor 
" can see/ (1 Tim. vi. 16.) — But he that hath seen 
ec Him who is * the image of the invisible God/ 
" (Col. i. 15.) hath seen all that can be seen of 
" God ; and he that hath heard Him who is the 
" Word, the Oracle, the Revealer of the Word of 
" God, has heard all that can be heard of God 
Even according to this exposition, what can our 
Lord's words imply, except such a mysterious union 
between them, that he who hath seen and heard the 
one, hath, in some way, seen and heard the other ? 
Do they not affirm that " he who hath seen all that 
<c was visible of Christ, hath seen the Person, to 
" whom was joined that invisible and divine Na- 



* Script. Doct. of the Trinity, No. 600. 



138 Indirect Testimonies to the [chap. hi. 

€e ture, which the Scripture has called by the name 
" of the Father*?" 

XX L John xix. 37. es And again, another 
Scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they 
pierced/' The Scripture referred to is Zech. xih 
10. " And they shall look upon me whom they 
have pierced f." These are the words of Jehovah ; 
but St. John applies them to Christ, who must 
therefore be the Lord Jehovah. It makes no dif- 
ference with respect to this conclusion whether the 
Apostle cited the words as a prediction of the cru- 
cifixion of Christ, or only by way of accommodation. 

* Jones, Catholic Doci. of the Trin, cap. i. § 38. See Haw- 
trey* QictvSpuTros , p. 54. et seq. 

f As the learned Schultens observes, (Animadvers. inter Op, 
Min. p. 360.) there is some appearance of discordance between 
" they shall look on me J' >^K, and " they shall mourn fox him" 
vVtf. To avoid this, and to approximate the language of the 
prophet to that of the evangelist, some critics, among whom is 
Kennicott, (Diss. Gen. § 43.) adopt the reading vVk, " they 
shall look upon him ;" but Dathe defends, and I think, success- 
fully, the present reading (Not. Crit. in he.) Dr. Blaney, 
in the note to his Translation of Zechariah 9 takes for a 
preposition (not bl* with the affix ») and renders it, ts they shall 
look towards him whom they pierced," Allowing the propriety 
of altering the punctuation in this case, yet the LXX. Vulgate, 
Syriac, and Theodotion, render the jod as the pronoun affix ; 
and the preposition only occurs in the book of Job, (Nol- 
dius in voc.) so that Blaney 's supposition rests upon very slender 
grounds. Besides Kennicott and De Rossi on the place, see 
Dr. Owen's Inquiry into the Septuagint, p. 29. and Modes of 
Quotation, p. 66. 



chap, in.] Divinity of Christ, * 139 

The words of Jehovah are by the Evangelist re- 
ferred to Christ : Jehovah says, 6 ' they shall look 
on me whom they pierced;' 7 but the Evangelist says, 
that Christ was " the Person whom they pierced/' 
and consequently was Jehovah*. 

XXII. Acts ii. 23, 24. se Him— ye have taken, 
and by wicked hands have crucified and slain; whom 
God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death ; 
because it was not possible that he should be 
hold en of it." Do not these expressions imply a 
physical impossibility f ? And of whom can this be 
said but of God ? 

XXIII. Acts ii. 33. " I shall maintain," says 
Bishop Horsley, " that the three Persons are dis- 
" tinctly mentioned in a manner which implies the 
(e divinity of each, Jesus — e being by the right 
" hand of God exalted, and having received of the 
" Father the promise of the Holy Ghost,' (Acts 
" ii. 33.)— of the Father — v^ol t©u woflgos — The 
" Father: the substantive, with the article pre- 
" fixed, describes a person, whose character it is to 
" be the Father. Paternity is the property, which 

* This passage of Zechariah, though it is not necessary to 
my argument, may be proved to be prophetical of Christ. See 
Bishop Chandler, Defence of Christianity, cap. ii. p. 107. 
Pearson, On the Creed, vol. i. p. 311. and the note in vol. ii. 
p. 246. Bishop Marsh, Lect. xxi. 

+ ov Svvupui sometimes only means a moral unfitness, (note 
to chap. v. sect, ii.) but ovx h Xviarov, in this verse, clearly 
denotes an impossibility. See Wollii Cures in loc. 



140 Indirect Testimonies to the [chap. hi. 

" individuates the person. But from whom is the 
ce first principle thus distinguished? From his 
" creatures? From them he were more signifi- 
" cantly distinguished by the name of God. Not 
" generally therefore from his creatures, but par- 
" ticularly from two other persons mentioned in 
" the same period, Jesus and the Holy Ghost. And 
" since this is his distinction, that he is the Father 
" of that Son, from whom, together with himself, 
€C the Holy Ghost proceeds : it follows, that the 
" interval, between him and them, is no more than 
" relation may create ; that the whole difference 
" lies in personal distinctions, not in essential qua- 
" lities*." 

XXIV. Acts ix. 3. " And, as he journeyed, he 
came near Damascus : and suddenly there shined 
round about him a light from heaven, &c." The 
argument for Christ's divinity, arising from the 
history of St. Paul's conversion, cannot be ex- 
pressed with more force than in the language of 
Bishop Horsley. " To me, I confess," says he, 
" it appears to have been a repetition of the scene 
" at the bush, heightened in terror and solemnity. 
" Instead of a lambent flame appearing to a solitary 
" shepherd amid the thickets of the wilderness, the 
" full effulgence of the Shechinah, overpowering 
" the splendour of the mid-day sun, bursts upon 
" the commissioners of the sanhedrim, on the pub- 

* Tracts in Controversy > p. 231. 



chap, in.] Divinity of Christ. 141 

" lie road to Damascus, within a small distance of 
" the city. Jesus speaks,, and is spoken to,, as the 
ce Divinity inhabiting that glorious light. Nothing 
" can exceed the tone of authority on the one 
" side, the submission and religious dread on the 
« other*." 

XXV. Acts x. 40. " Him God raised up the 
third day, and shewed him openly." John xxi. I. 
:c After these things Jesus shewed himself again to 
the disciples at the sea of Tiberias ; and on this 
wise shewed he himself." (Comp. Acts i. 3.) In 
some places also it is said that God raised up Jesus 
from the dead; Acts ii. 24. 32. iii. 15. iv. 10. 
xiii. 30. Rom. iv. 24. viii. 11. 1 Cor. vi. 14. xv. 15. 
Gal. i. 1. Ephes. i. 20. &c. while in others it is said 
that (< he rose again the third day/' (1 Cor. xv. 3, 4.) 
that (< he had power to lay down his life, and power 
to take it again/' (John x. 18.): that he left the 
world and went to the Father, (John xvi. 28. ) ; 
that " he ascended up on high, and led captivity 
captive/' (Ephes. iv. 8.) He is likewise said to be 
" quickened by the Spirit/' (1 Pet. iii. 18.) Again, 
the resurrection of the dead in general is sometimes 
represented as the work of the Father, Acts xxvi. 8. 
1 Cor. vi. 14. 2 Cor. i. 9. at other times of the Son, 
John v. 25. vi. 39. 40. 54. 1 Cor. xv. 21. ee For as 
the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth 

* Tracts in Controversy, p. 231. See Vitringa, Obs. Sac. 
lib. vi. cap. x. § 12. 



142 Indirect Testimonies to the [chap, hi. 

them ; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will/* 
(John v. 21.) To raise the dead is an act of such 
stupendous magnitude as can only be effected by 
omnipotent power ; when, therefore, we find it in- 
differently ascribed to the Father and to the Son, 
we are led to infer an unity of powei% and an unity 
of power infers an unity of essence. 

XXVI. Rom. viii. 9. " But ye are not in the 
flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit op 
God dwell in you. Now, if any man have not the 
Spirit of Christ he is none of his." Some eminent 
commentators are of opinion, that the apostle is not 
here speaking of the Holy Ghost ; and that the 
<e Spirit of God," means a godly spirit, and the 
€C Spirit of Christ," a Christian spirit *. Should 
this be granted, yet it must be allowed that irvivpa 
©sou and nvivpa XpurVv are equivalent. Whatever 
sense may be annexed to wav^x, it is said to be, 
without any distinction or difference, the of 
God and of Christ ; the XpitrVv in the latter 

clause, being clearly of the same import with ttusZ^ 
®£qv in the former. To join the vvtZ^u, of God and 
of a man in this way, would border upon impiety ; 
to warrant such a mode of expression as the above, 

* Middleton, Doct. of the Gr. Art. p. 451. Rosenmiiller 
in loc. I build my argument upon this interpretation, which is 
favoured by the absence of the article ; but the passage may 
refer to the Holy Spirit, in which case the argument would be 
much stronger. See Bengel, Gnomon in loc. 



chap, in.] Divinity of Christ. 143 

there must be a close and mysterious union between 
God and Christ. 

XXVII. Rom. ix. 32, 33. " For they stumbled 
at that stumbling stone ; as it is written, Behold I 
lay in Sion a stumbling stone, and a rock of of- 
fence, and whosoever believeth on him shall not be 
ashamed." Compare 1 Pet. ii.7, 8. The reference is 
to Isaiah viih 13, 14. " Sanctify the Lord of Hosts 
himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be 
your dread. And he shall be for a sanctuary*; but 
for a stone of stumbling, and for a rock of 
offence/' As this passage is expressly applied by 
the apostles St. Paul and St. Peter to Christ, Christ 
must be the Lord of Hosts himself. 

XXVIII. I Cor. x. 9. 4< Neither let us tempt 
Christ, as some of them also tempted/' The act 
of rebellion here referred to was that of the Jews 
in the wilderness, and described in Psalm Ixxviii. 
" They tempted God in their heart by asking meat 

* Bishop Lowth thinks it possible that instead of t£Hp», a 
sanctuary, the true reading might be typiD, a snare : but this is 
neither authorized by MSS. nor the ancient versions, and would 
destroy the opposition which seems intended between this 
clause and the next. The allusion appears to be to the protec- 
tion afforded by the Temple, 1 Kings i. 50. ii. 28. Among 
Pagans, their temples were places of refuge or asylums to those 
who fled thither. The sense, then, is, He shall be an asylum, 
a place of refuge to those who ily to him ; at the same time, 
lie shall be a stone of stumbling, &c. See Rosenmiiller, Scholia 
in ioe. 



144 Indirect Testimonies to the [chap. hi. 



for their lust," (v. 18.) " They sinned yet more 
against him by provoking the most High in the 
wilderness/* (v. 17.) cc They tempted and pro- 
voked the most high God, and kept not his testi- 
monies/' (v. 56.) In the one passage the person 
whom the Israelites tempted is called the most high 
God, in the other he is called Christ; therefore 
Christ is the most high God *. 

XXIX. 1 Cor. xii. 28. " God hath set some in 
the church ; first, apostles ; secondarily, prophets ; 
thirdly, teachers, &c." The Apostle ascribes the 
same thing to Christ, Ephes. iv. 11. " And he 
(Christ) gave some, apostles ; and some, prophets ; 
and some, evangelists ; and some, pastors and 
teachers." 

XXX. 1 Cor. xv. 45. " The first man Adam 
was made a living soul, the last Adam was made a 
quickening spirit ;" us wviZpn fyonoiovK The estab- 
lished translation is countenanced by the ancient 
versions, but some chuse to render the latter clause 
— " The second Adam is a quickening spirit f." 
As the Son derived his being, essence, and attri- 

* See sect. iii. prop, fourth, 4. p. 98. 

f The latter Adam is for an enlivening spirit." Doddridge. 
" — is a vivifying spirit." Macknight's Paraphrase. " Verba 
o — fyonoiovv, nullibi extant in V. T. Ergo non videtur e 

superiori membro repetendum iysvslo, sed potius eall subin- 
telligendum esse." Rosenmiiller in loc. elf is sometimes used 
pleonastically. Schleusner in v, 21. 



chap, hi.] Divinity of Christ. 145 

butes, by an eternal generation, from the Father, 

the rendering of the standard version is admissible; 
at leasts the argument in this section does not re- 
quire any alteration, since it is founded upon the 
last words wi^a ^oooiroioZv ; which mean that Christ 
has " power to quicken, and confer eternal life on 
" all his members ; or is the giver of that quicken- 
" ing spirit, by which we shall be raised from the 
" dead, and made spiritual," as Whitby para- 
phrases it. Christ is not merely endued with life, 
like the first Adam, but is life-giving, is the foun- 
tain from which life eternal and spiritual proceeds ; 
and therefore partakes of the divine nature*." 

XXXI. 2 Cor. iii. 5, 6. " Our sufficiency is of 
God, who also hath made us able ministers of the 
New Testament." This commission to the ministry 
is referred to Christ, 1 Tim. i. 12. " And I thank 
Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for 
that he counted me faithful, putting me into the 
ministry." It is also ascribed to the Holy Ghost, 
Acts xx. 28. " Take heed unto yourselves, and to 
all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made 
you overseers." 

XXXII. 2 Cor. v. 18, 19. " But all of God, 

who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ 
—God was in Christ reconciling the world to him- 

* The difference between the first and second Adam, which 
shews clearly the divine nature of the latter, is excellently 

-delineated by Bishop Burgsss, The Bible, 8fc, p, 87. ct seq. 

L 



146 Indirect Testimonies to the [chap. hi. 

self." Yet Jesus Christ was the reconciler, Col. i. 
21, 22. ** You that were sometimes enemies hath 
he (Jesus) reconciled in the body of his flesh 
through death." In Heb. ii. 17. he is said to have 
made ff reconciliation for the sins of the people 
and in Rom. v. 11. the Apostle speaks of "Jesus 
Christ by whom we have now received the atone- 
ment/' rw xrf*\\oiyiv, THE RECONCILIATION *. 

XXXIII. Gal. i. .11, 12. " I certify unto you, 
brethren, that the Gospel which was preached of me 
is not after man. For I neither received it of man, 
neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of 
Jesus Christ." Here Christ is as plainly distin- 
guished from man, as words can express it ; he 
cannot, therefore, be a mere man : but in Ephes. 
iii. 2, 3. St. Paul says, " the dispensation of the 
grace of God, which is given me to you- ward; how 
that by revelation he (God) made known to me 
the mystery." Thus the revelation of Jesus Christ 
is the revelation of God ; Christ therefore is God. 

XXXIV. Ephes. iv. 7, 8. « But unto every 
one of us is given grace, according to the measure 
of the gift of Christ. Wherefore he saith, When 
he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, 
and gave gifts unto men." This is taken from 
Psalm lxviii. 17, 18. " The chariots of God are 
twenty thousand, even thousands of angels : the 

* Dr. Magee, Discourses on Atonement, No. xxvni. 



chap, in.] Divinity of Christ. 14? 

Lord (Adonai) is among them as in Sinai, in the 
holy place. Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast 
led captivity captive ; thou hast received gifts for 
men*." According to the Psalmist, it was God, 
even Jehovah, that ascended up on high : accord- 
ing to the Apostle, it was Christ ; which ascertains 
their identity. Besides, the application of this 
passage to our Saviour by the Apostle is a proof 
that this psalm relates to the Messiah, who is conse- 
quently the subject of it, and is described in cha- 
racters clearly denoting absolute divinity. Compare 
sect. iii. p. 99. 

XXXV. Ephes. iv. 32. « And be ye kind one 
to another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another, 
even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you 
but in Col. iii. 13. the Apostle exhorts to mutual 
forbearance and forgiveness, " even as Christ for- 
gave you, so also do ye." 

XXXVI. Col. iii. 11. " Christ is all and in 
all;" yet, in another place, 1 Cor. xii. 6. the 
Apostle tells us that te it is the same God which 
worketh all in all." If Christ is not God the 
Apostle clearly contradicts himself : for if God 

* This differs from the Apostle's translation, which is "gave 
gifts unto men supported by the Targum, Syriac, and Arabic 
The word used by the Psalmist, npV, signifies to give, as well 
as to receive. (Simonis, Lex. Heb. Michaelis, Suppl. No. 1336.) 
and ought to be translated with St. Paul, «' and gave gifts to 
men." See Hammond and Whitby, On Ephes. iv, 1, 8, 

l2 



148 Indirect Testimonies to the [chap, m, 

u worketh all in all/' Christ cannot be " all in all/' 
unless he is God. The same inference may be 
deduced from the three following sections. 

XXXVII Ephes. i. 23, " The fulness of him 
(L e. Jesus Christ) that filleth all in all." 1 Cor. 
xv. 28. " That Goo may be all in all." 

XXXVIII. Rom. ix. 5. <c Christ— who is over 
all, God blessed for ever." Compare Acts x. 36. 
Rom. x. 12. which last text, " the same Lord over 
all (or, Lord of all) is rich unto all that call upon 
him/' may refer to the Father : there are, however, 
abundance of texts asserting that God the Father is 
supreme, over all 

XXXIX. John iii. 31. " He that cometh from 
heaven (i. e. Christ,) is above all." Ephes. iv. 6. 
" One God and Father of all who is above all." 

XL. Heb. i. 6. " When he bringeth in the 
first-begotten into the world, he saith, And let ail 
the angels of God worship him." Here the ninety- 
seventh Psalm, from which this is a quotation, is 
applied to Christ. Now, the Person so magnificently 
described in it is several times called Jehovah ; 
therefore Christ, to whom, the inspired author of the 
Epistle to the Hebrews applies it, is Jehovah *. 

* See a beautiful discourse on Heb. i. 6. by Bishop Horsley, 
in Nine Sermons, Sfc, 



chap, us.] Divinity of Christ, 149 

XLL Heb. ii. 2, 3. " For if the word spoken 
by angels was stedfast — how shall we escape, if we 
neglect so great salvation, which at the first began 
to be spoken by the Lord/' Also v. 9. " We see 
Jesus, who was made a little lower than the 
angels * ;" and v. 7. " Thou madest him a little 
lower than the angels." Such observations, if 
spoken of a mere man, are scarcely reconcileable 
with common sense ; for how could a man be other- 
wise, as a man, than inferior to the angels ? The 
assertion that he, Christ, was made lower than the 
angels, certainly intimates that he was by nature 
higher than the angels. 

If the authorized version of v. 16. " he took not 
on him the nature of angels/' be admitted, his su- 
periority to angels is clearly implied ; but this 
translation is too dubious to be the foundation of an 
argument f. 

XLII. 1 Pet. i. 10, 11. " Of which salvation 
the prophets have enquired and searched diligently ^ 
who prophesied of the grace that should come unto 

* To render uyyixov? v)\a.Tru [xivov, te who was, i. e. by 
nature, a little inferior to the angels," is grossly absurd : ikctr- 
tow is to make lower, inftriorem reddtre. The argument in the 
text will be even stronger if we translate t», in v. 7» 

and 9. **. for a little while," i. e. thou hast made him for a little 
while lower than the angels. The Greek will undoubtedly bear 
it, and it is so rendered by the Syriac, margin of E. T. Peirce, 
Bengel, Maeknight, Parkhurst, Schleusner, &c. The references 
iu the last mentioned author incline me to this opinion , 

t See Whitby On the Place, 



150 Indirect Testimonies to the [chap. hi. 

you : searching what, or what manner of time the 
Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, 
when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, 
and the glory that should follow." The prophets 
who flourished under the Mosaic dispensation, con- 
stantly affirm, that they received their predictions 
from God : Christ, therefore, is God. Thus this 
passage proves both the pre-existence and divinity 
of our Lord. 

Evident as this appears to be, the Socinians en- 
deavour to give another meaning to the words. 
The Spirit in the ancient prophets, they contend, is 
called the Spirit of Christ, because it foretold the 
things concerning him. But, according to this, it 
might as well be called the Spirit of Antichrist, 
because it predicted him ; or our Spirit, because it 
foretold things pertaining to us *. " The Spirit of 
Christ which was in the prophets/' must therefore 
signify, that Christ spake by them, that it was his 
Spirit which enabled them to utter their prophecies. 
Yet we know that " all Scripture is given by 
inspiration of God," (2 Tim. iii. 16.) : we know 
also that " prophecy came not in old time by the 

* Poli Si/nop. It may be observed that the expression is 
to wnvpa,, with the article, which Bishop Middleton says is 
always the case when the Holy Spirit is meant. ( Doct. of Gr. 
Art, p. 167.) The phrase " Spirit of Christ," occurs Rom. 
viii. 9. but vrnvpa is there anarthrous. (See sect. xxvi. p. 142.) 
The same phrase must refer to the Holy Ghost, Gal. iv. 6. 
" Because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of 
his Son into your hearts." A clear intimation of the Trinity. 
So Phil. i. 19. and Acts xvi. 7. but see Griesbach. 



chap, in.] Divinity of Christ 151 
will of man ; but holy men of God spake as they 

WERE MOVED BY THE HoLY GHOST/' (2 Pet. i. 21.) 

Thus prophecy is ascribed indifferently to the 
Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, which denotes 
the incomprehensible union of the three Persons of 
the Godhead. 

XLIIL 2 Pet. i. 4. " Whereby are given unto 
us exceeding* great and precious promises ; that by 
these ye might be partakers of the divine nature/' 
Heb. iii. i4. " For we are made partakers of 
Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence 
stedfast unto the end." What St. Peter terms 
being* ce partakers of the divine nature/' St. Paul 
calls the being " partakers of Christ therefore 
Christ is in or of the divine nature ; consequently 
God * 

XLIV. 2 Pet. iii. 12. " Looking for and hasten- 
ing unto the coming of the day of God the same 
which St. Paul calls the ff day of Christ," Phil. i. 
10. " That ye may be sincere, and without offence 
till the day of Christ. 5 ' God and Christ are there- 
fore plainly identified, 

* Oiicc; xoivcovot (pvatws, Schleusner renders " ut participes 
fiatis Divinae naturae et indolis, h. e. similes Deo fiatis." See 
Wetstein in loc. " Ye might become partakers of the divine 
nature, the holiness, and immortality of God." Macknight. 
" Transformed into the image of God's moral perfections." 
Doddridge. Mero^oi ytylmptv tS X^crlS, Schleusner renders 
" participes Christi, h, e. veri ejus sectatores sumus, perti- 
nemus ad familiam Christi." 



153 Indirect Testimonies to the [chap. in. 

XLV. 1 John iv. 2. f < Every spirit that con- 
fesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh/' 
This, say the Unitarians, only means that Jesus 
Christ is truly a man, " But it should seem/' as 
Bishop Horsley argues, " that the proposition that 
(C he was truly a man, if he was nothing- more than 
" man, is very aukwardly and unnaturally expressed 
" by the phrase of his ' coming in the flesh / for, 
" in what other way was it possible for a mere man 
" to come ? The turn of the expression seems to 
" lead to the notion of a being, who had his choice 
" of different ways of coming # /' 

XLVI. Jude 1. ce — to them that are sancti- 
fied by God the Father." Heb. ii. 11. " He that 
sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of 
one ; for which cause he is not ashamed to call 
them brethren/ 5 Rom. xv. 16. " Being sanctified 
by the Holy Ghost." 

XLV1L Jude 24, 25. " Now unto him which is 
able to keep you from falling, and to present you 
faultless before the presence of his glory with ex- 
ceeding joy : to the only wise God our Saviour, be 
glory, &c." Griesbach's text is—" to God alone 

* Tracts in Controversy, p. 17. and p. 118. et seq. The 
observations above are equally if not more applicable to the 
translation proposed by some critics, viz. " Every spirit that 
confessed) Jesus to be the Christ come in the flesh." (King's 
Morsels of Criticism, vol. i. p. 205. ed. 8vo.) The received 
version, however, appears to be the true rendering. 



chap, in.] Divinity of Christ, 153 

our Saviour,, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be 
glory, &c. a variation of little importance as far 
as concerns our present purpose. That which God 
the Father is represented as alone able to perform, 
is expressly ascribed to Christ, Ephes. v. 25, 27. 
" Christ loved the church, and gave himself for it 

that HE MIGHT PRESENT IT TO HIMSELF, a glorioUS 

church, &c* " " It is the only wise God, who is 
" able to present us before the presence of his 
" glory : but Christ is to present us, as members 
" of his church in glory, to himself : therefore he 
(C is the only wise God, to whom also appertains 
" the presence of glory ; for that is no other than 
" his own presence, himself -\." 

XLV1II. Revel, xxi. 22. " And I saw no temple 
therein : for the Lord God Almighty and the 
Lamb are the temple of it." Whatever may be 
meant by the New Jerusalem, of which St. John is 
here speaking, or by the word Ci temple," I rest the 
argument arising from this text, upon this, that the 
Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are represented 
conjointly and without any distinction, as the temple 
of the New Jerusalem, which surely implies identity 
of nature. A mere man could never be placed so 
far upon an equality with God, as to be said to 
form, jointly with God, the temple of the New 
Jerusalem. 

* Griesbach's text is, wupctelviav) avroj lotvlu, rejecting avryiv. 
t Jones, Cathol. Doct. of the Trin. cap. i. $ 41. 



154 Indirect Testimonies to the [chap. hi. 

In the next verse, we read, " And the city had 
no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in 

it ; for THE GLORY OF GoD DID LIGHTEN IT, and THE 

Lamb is the light thereof." Are not God and 
the Lamb so identified in these expressions, as 
necessarily leads us to infer sameness of nature ? 

Thus far 1 have argued without reference to any 
particular interpretation of the chapter from whence 
the texts are taken ; but it is plain to me, that the 
new heaven, and new earth, and the New Jeru- 
salem, are an emblematical description of the celes- 
tial kingdom of heaven which the redeemed shall 
inherit after the final judgment # . According to 
this view, when the Lord God Almighty and the 
Lamb are represented as the temple of the hea- 
venly regions, the meaning will be, that they are 
present in the new city in a more glorious and per- 
fect manner, than God was ever present in the 
temple of the earthly Jerusalem ; that the saints 
shall laud and magnify them Both without the 
intervention of those rites, in which they were ce- 
lebrated on earth ; and that they shall be the light, 
life, and happiness of the redeemed, who shall be 
enraptured with the beatific vision of the Triune 
God, surrounded with a blaze of celestial glory. 
Grant that the verses above cited, relate to heaven, 
properly so called, and you will see that our Lord is 
so joined with the Father, so placed upon the same 

* See Bishop Newton's Dissertations on the Prophecies, 
xxv. Doddridge in loc. and Archdeacon Woodhouse On the 
Apocalypse, in loc. 



chap, in.] Divinity of Christ. 155 

level with him, as leaves not the smallest room to 
doubt of his participation in the same nature. 

XLIX. Revel, xxii. 6. u The Lord God of the 
holy prophets * sent his angel to shew unto his ser- 
vants the things which must shortly be done/* Ibid, 
ver. 16. "I, Jesus, have sent mine angel to testify 
unto you these things in the churches." The angel 
that appeared unto St. John was the angel of the 
Lord God who sent him, but he was the angel of 
Jesus who sent him ; therefore Jesus is the Lord 
God of the holy prophets. 

L. Revel, xxii. 12. " Behold, I (Jesus) come 
quickly, and my reward is with me." Isa. xl. 10. 
" Behold the Lord God will come with strong 
hand, and his arm shall rule for him : behold, his 
reward is with him, and his work before him." 

LI. Psalm xlix. 7. 

" No man can by any means redeem his brother, 
He cannot give unto God an atonement for 
himself f." 

But Christ did redeem his brethren, did give unto 
God an atonement for us ; therefore he was not a 

* Griesbach's text is, o Sso? rav itnvpocrm tuv wpotp^uv. 

+ Bishop Horsley's Translation. Dathe's is, " Nemo potest 
alterum redimere ; aut redemptionis pretium Deo solvere.'' 
Bossuet, as quoted by Bishop Home, says, " Hos versus ad 
Christum patres referunt, ut sensus sit, nemo purus homo 
fratrem redimit, sed tantum ille homo, qui etiam Deus est." 



156 Indirect Testimonies to the [chap. hi. 

mere man. That Christ's death was an expiatory 
sacrifice is here taken for granted,, as the proof of 
it would require a discussion of too great an extent 
to be comprehended in this work; but allowing 
that he made an atonement for the sins of the 
world, and yet, according to the Psalmist, <c no 
man/' no mere human being, could do it, Christ 
must be a Being above man. 

LII. Prov. viii. 22—25. 

" Jehovah possessed me the beginning of his 

Before his works of old. 
I was anointed from everlasting, 
Prom the beginning, before the world was. 
When there were no depths I was born ; 
When there were no fountains abounding with 
water. 

Before the mountains were settled, 
Before the hills were, I was born." 
In the work from which this version is extracted, I 
have shewn that the eighth chapter of Proverbs 
refers to no other than the divine and hypostatic 
Word ; and that the ancient Jewish and Christian 
churches unanimously concurred in applying it to 
the same heavenly Personage. If it relate to 
Christ, no doubt will remain that it bears a striking 
testimony to his divinity and eternal filiation. 

LIU. Isaiah vl I — 5. In the year that king 
Uzziah died ? I saw also the Lord (Jehovah) 



chap, in.] Divinity of Christ 157 

sitting upon A throne, high and lifted up, and his 
train tilled the temple. Above it stood the sera- 
phims : each one had six wings, &c. And one 
cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is 
the Lord (Jehovah) of Hosts : the whole earth is 
full of his glory. And the posts of the door moved 
at the voice of him that cried, and the house was 
filled with smoke. Then said I, Woe is me ! for I 
am undone ; because I am a man of unclean lips, 
and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean 
lips : for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord 
(Jehovah) of Hosts." The eternal Spirit hath 
given the true interpretation of this glorious vision, 
by the evangelist St. John, ch. xii. 40, 41. " He 
hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart, 
that they should not see with their eyes, nor under- 
stand with their heart, and be converted, and I 
should heal them *. These things said Esaias, 
when he saw his glory and spake of him." The 
Prophet tells us that he saw the glory of Jehovah : 
but St. John says it was the glory of Christ which 
Isaiah saw; Christ, therefore, was the Jehovah 
whom the entranced Prophet beheld, sitting upon a 
throne, whose train filled the temple, who was 
celebrated by the enraptured seraphim, in their 

* Without enumerating the various ways of explaining this 
passage to make it consistent with the divine justice and mercy, 
I cannot forbear observing, that the opinion of Schulz, Morus, 
Tittman, Kuinoel, and others, seems preferable to any ; viz. by 
supplying h Xxo$ ovroc, and rendering it, " This people have 
blinded their own eyes, and hardened their own hearts, &c." 



158 Indirect Testimonies to the [chap. hi. 

hymn, " Holy, holy, holy, is Jehovah of Hosts: the 
whole earth is full of his glory." 

LIV. Isaiah xliv. 6. " Thus saith the Lord, the 
King of Israel, and his Redeemer the Lord of 

Hosts, I AM THE FIRST, AND I AM THE LAST ; and 

besides me there is no God." Our blessed Saviour 
is called Alpha and Omega, in Revel, xxii. 13. and 
the First and the Last, in Revel, i. 17. ii. 8. 
xxii. 13. from which it appears that our Saviour is 
the King of Israel, and the Lord of Hosts. 

LV. Isaiah xlv. 22, 23. " Look unto me, and 
be ye saved, all the ends of the earth ; for I am 
God, and there is none else. I have sworn by 
myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righ- 
teousness, and shall not return, That unto me every 

KNEE SHALL BOW, EVERY TONGUE SHALL SWEAR." The 

Apostle applies this to our Lord, Rom. xiv. 9 — 11. 
" To this end, Christ both died and rose, and re- 
vived, that he might be Lord roth of the dead 
and living. — For we shall all stand before the 
judgment seat of Christ. For it is written, As I 
live, saith the Lord ; every knee shall bow to me, 

AND EVERY TONGUE SHALL CONFESS TO GoD." Also 

in Phil. ii. 10. " At the name of Jesus every knee 
shall bow." Christ, then, is God, the Jehovah of 
the Old Testament. 

Again, the Apostle says that God " swears by 
himself, because he can swear by no greater/' (Heb. 
vi. 13.); but here Christ swears by himself, " as 1 



chap. m. J Divinity of Christ. 159 

live, saith the Lord/' " I have sworn by myself 
which, according to the Apostle's rule, is because 
he can swear by no greater, whence it follows that 
Christ is God *. 

LVI. Isaiah lii. 7. <c How beautiful upon the 
mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good 
tidings, that publisheth peace ; that bringeth good 
tidings of good, that publisheth salvation ; that 
saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth." This pro- 
phecy is applied to Jesus Christ by St. Paul, 
Rom. x. 15. Christ, therefore, is the God " who 
reigneth/' in conjunction with the Father. 

LVII. Dan. vii. 13, 14. " I saw in the night- 
visions, and behold, one like the Son of Man came 
with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient 
of days, and they brought him near before him. 
And there was given him dominion and glory, and 
a kingdom, that all people, nations, and lan- 
guages, SHOULD SERVE HIM I HIS DOMINION IS AN 

everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, 
and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed/' 
It is not necessary to prove at large that this is a 
prediction of the Messiah's kingdom, for it is appli- 
cable to nothing else f . Here, then, we not only 
read that Christ's kingdom is an " everlasting king- 

* See Lowth's Commentary on the Place. 

+ See Wintle and Lowth in loc. Bishop Chandler's Defence, 
p. 128. and Vindication of the Defence, lib. i. cap. ii. sect. ii. 
Bishop Marsh's Led. xxt. 



160 Indirect Testimonies to the [chap. hi. 

dom," which implies that it shall endure till the 
final consummation of all things, (1 Cor. xv. 28.) ; 
but that (t all people, nations, and languages, should 
serve him," which implies a religious homage, due 
only to him who is essentially God. 

LVIII. Zech. xiii. 7. " Awake, O sword, 
against my Shepherd, and against the man that is 
my fellow, saith the Lord of Hosts : smite the 
Shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered/' This 
prediction our Lord applied to himself, and to the 
desertion of his Apostles at the time of his suffer- 
ings and crucifixion, Matt. xxvi. 31. " All ye shall 
be offended, because of me this night, for it is 
written, I will smite the Shepherd, and the sheep 
shall be scattered abroad." The Shepherd who, 
as man, was to be smitten, ft is my fellow, saith 
the Lord of Hosts," that is, my co-equal, and co- 
eternal Son *. 

* Dr. Blaney, it must be owned, is of opinion that the 
passage of Zechariah has no reference to the death of Christ. 
In this he appears to be completely mistaken, since our Lord 
expressly applies it to himself, Matt. xxvi. 31. Mark xiv. 27. 
(see Dathe, and Mant's Bible, in loc.) This being prophetical 
of Christ, the argument for his divinity lies in the expressions 
" against my Shepherd, against the man who is my fellow," 
"DJ hy. " All that can be said of n»Dtf is," according to 
Blaney, " that it may signify a neighbour, one that is near or 
next to another, or that bears some kind of correspondency or 
resemblance to him, but exclusive of the idea of parity.'* This 
word only occurs elsewhere in Leviticus, always meaning a 
neighbour, or f ell oiv~ citizen $ or member of the same society. 



chap, in.] Divinity of Christ. 161 

LIX. It has been urged that sin, being an offence 
against an infinite Being, requires an infinite satis- 
faction ; and that Christ, consequently, who made 
that satisfaction, must be an infinite Person, or in 
other words, actually God. This reasoning has 
been pronounced by no less authority than Dr. 
Magee, to be false and fallacious, to which it might 
be justly replied, that sin being committed by a 
finite creature, requires only a finite satisfaction, 
for which purpose a finite person might be an 
adequate victim *. If one might, without pre- 
sumption, dissent from this eminently learned and 
acute writer, I should allege that this statement 
presents only a partial view of the case ; it being 
necessary to take into consideration, the person 
against whom, as well as the person by whom sin 
is committed. Now, consider the Being against 
whom sin is committed, and who is to be reconciled 
to fallen man ; it is the eternal and supreme God, 
equally infinite in justice as in mercy ; and it seems 
most agreable to all the notions we form of infinite 
justice, to believe that it requires an infinite satis- 
faction for sin. How can a finite being satisfy 
infinitude, and reconcile the Creator to the rebel 

Hence, when Jehovah calls Christ *n»»tf, it is equivalent to 
calling him the Person who is of the same society with Jehovah, 
his fellow, or co-equal; " super virum co-haerentem inihi." 
Vulg. Others render it " mihi carus." Syr. Schulz, Cocc. 
Dathe. 

* Discourses on Atonement, No. 13. vol. i. p. 171. See, on 
the other hand, Witsius de CEconom. Foeder, lib. ii. cap. iv, 

M 



162 Indirect Testimonies to the [chap. hi. 

creature ? Yet let us not attempt to be wise above 
what is written ; and without presuming to scan 
the counsels of Omnipotence, let us, with reveren- 
tial humility, accept the gracious tenders of re- 
deeming love, vouchsafed to us in the Scriptures *. 
We are there taught that Christ is the propitiation 
for our sins, and that he laid down his life an 
expiatory sacrifice to reconcile man to his offended 
God. Admitting that we cannot infer the divinity 
of Christ from the atonement, yet when we reflect 
upon the magnitude and efficacy of this piacular 
sacrifice, it powerfully impresses upon the mind the 
conviction that this Redeemer cannot have been a 
mere human being. Can a frail, dependent, fallible 
creature, become a ransom for sin ; and by the 
surrender of his life, procure a pardon for repent- 
ant sinners ? Impossible : " No man can by any 
means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom 
for him/' (Ps. xlix. 7.) He, whose meritorious 
obedience unto death, satisfied divine justice, and 
opened the gates of heaven to returning penitents, 
must be more than man. The doctrine of the 
atonement, therefore, may be effectually urged 
against the Socinian scheme, though it should not 
be conclusive as to the proper deity of Jesus f . 

* See the admirable reasoning of Bishop Butler in the most 
profound work ever produced by uninspired wisdom, The 
Analogy of Religion, P. II. cap. 5. 

+ That Christ died to atone for sin is necessarily here taken 
for granted. The atonement has been vindicated by many 
writers, as Outram, Veysie, Magee, &c. Compare sect. Hi. 



chap, in.] Divinity of Christ, 163 

LX. The inspired Writers of the New Tes- 
tament constantly represent Faith in the Lord 
Jesus Christ as absolutely necessary to salvation. 
" God so loved the world, that he gave his only- 
begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him 
should not perish, but have everlasting life/' John 
iii. 16. " He that believeth on the Son hath ever- 
lasting life ; and he that believeth not the Son shall 
not see life," John iii. 36. " Let not your heart be 
troubled, says our Lord, ye believe in God, believe 
also in me" John xiv. t. " Believe on the Lord 
Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved/' was the 
apostolic injunction to the early converts, Acts 
xvi. 31. It is the uniform tenor of Scripture, that 
we are justified, or admitted into the Christian 
covenant, by faith only, and that this faith must 
become a lively faith, productive of good works, in 
order to the attainment of final salvation. Let the 
question be put to any candid mind, whether this 
representation accords with the supposition of 
Christ's being only a human teacher ? Neither 
Moses, the Jewish legislator, nor the ancient pro- 
phets, nor the apostles, are ever proposed as per- 
sons, without faith in whom we cannot be saved. 
And is it not incredible that Jesus, had he been a 
mere man, would have been thus associated with 
God, as the object of that faith which is essential to 
salvation ? Would faith in any person be enjoined 
as an indispensable condition of salvation, unless 
that person really participated in the divine nature ? 

m 2 



164 Indirect Testimonies to the [chap. hi. 

Is it not, then, the fair deduction of reason, that 
Jesus, ki whom faith is so absolutely required for 
the attainment of eternal life, must be intimately 
united with God, and partake of the divine power, 
dominion, and essence. 

LXI, Almost every feeling and affection which 
reason and revelation teach us should be directed 
to the Supreme Being, is commanded to be exer- 
cised towards Christ. He is proposed to us as an 
object of love, hope, gratitude, obedience and wor- 
ship*. All this is wholly inexplicable on any other 
supposition than that of his divinity. Such a homage 
is not enjoined towards any human being, nor any 
of the angelic choir. Here Jesus stands alone, an 
exception to the eternal and universal law which 
forbids in the creature any participation of the 
honours which belong to the Creator. In Jesus, we 
are to place our dearest hopes ; he is to be the 
object of our constant and unceasing love, of our 
grateful obedience ; the Being before whom we are 
to prostrate ourselves in the humility of prayer, and 
at the contemplation of whose mercy we are to lift 
up our voices in strains of adoring praise! Surely, 
since he is thus presented as the object of the pious 

* We are required to make him the object of love, Matt, 
x. 37. Luke xiv. 26.* 1 Cor. xvi. 22. of hope, Col i. 27. 1 Thess. 
i. 3. 1 Cor. xv. 19. of gratitude, 1 Tim. i. 12. Rev. v. 12. of 
obedience, Heb. v. 9. John xiv. 21. 1 John ii. 4, 5. of worship^ 
see chap. vii. of this work. 



chap, m, 3 Divinity of Christ 165 

affections of the heart, he must be ineffably joined 
to the one divine and eternal Godhead, Father, Son, 
and Holy Ghost. 

LXII. The manner in which our Saviour per- 
formed the most stupendous miracles plainly shewed 
them to be the operations of inherent and essential 
Deity. They are peculiarly distinguished from the 
miracles wrought by the first preachers of Chris- 
tianity, by being performed in his own name, by his 
own will, and by his own power. 

Not a single instance in any of the Gospels is to 
be met with of his exercising his miraculous powers 
in the name of God, whereas, his disciples, so far 
from performing miracles in their own name, in- 
variably ascribe them to the power and operation of 
Deity. The seventy disciples returned, saying, 
" Lord, even the devils are subject to us through 
thy name," (Luke x. 17.) " And these signs shall 
follow them that believe : In my name shall they 
cast out devils ; they shall speak with new tongues, 
they shall take up serpents, &c." (Mark xvi. 17.) 
When the multitude marvelled at the cure of the 
lame man, Peter, in his address upon the occasion 
immediately referred it to the " Prince of Life 
" And his name through faith in his name, hath 
made this man strong," (Acts iii. 16.) The apostles 
never performed a miracle without an express ac- 
knowledgment of their dependence upon divine aid 
for the power ; and if Christ had been only a man, 



166 Indirect Testimonies to the [chap. hi. 

he would, in like manner, have referred his miracles 
to God, He would have done them in the name of 
God, to shew that he was only a divinely-commis- 
sioned prophet, and did not perform them by his 
own power. The contrary of which being the 
case, is a tacit acknowledgment that they were the 
exertions of his own divinity. 

The miracles of our Lord are performed in such 
a manner as leads us to suppose them to be the spon- 
taneous exertions of his own will. There <e came 
a leper to him, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, 
if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. And 
Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, 
I will; be thou clean. And immediately his 
leprosy was cleansed/' (Matt. viii. 2, 3.) We are 
likewise told that " the Son quicken eth whom he 
will/ 5 (John v. 21.) It is said that " many be- 
lieved in his name, when they saw His miracles 
which he did He tells the blind man, "Receive 
thy sight," (Luke xviii. 42.) He says to the cripple, 
" Take up thy bed, and walk," (John v. 8.) : to La- 
zarus, lying dead in the tomb, " Come forth/' (John 
xi. 43.) : to the sea, agitated with the winds and 
the waves, " Peace, be still/' (Mark iv. 39.) These, 
and similar acts of miraculous power, are repre- 
sented to be performed by Christ in such a way, as 
implies their being voluntary acts : and we cannot 

* John ii. 23. So the received version of John vi. 2. but 
Giiesbach rejects 



chap, in.] Divinity of Christ. 167 

conceive that the power of working* miracles can be 
at the will and option of any being less than omni- 
potence *. 

Jesus also wrought miracles by his own power: 
to the twelve he gave ec power, and authority over 
all devils, and to cure diseases/ 5 (Luke ix. 1.) He 
saith to the seventy, " Behold, 1 give unto you 
power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over 
all the power of the enemy ; and nothing shall by 
any means hurt you/ 3 (Luke x. 19.) Paul and 
Barnabas " spake boldly in the Lord, who gave 
testimony unto the word of his grace, and granted 
signs and wonders to be done by their hands," 
(Acts xiv. 3.) And the Apostle says, " Unto every 
one of us is grace given, according to the measure 
of the gift of Christ/' (Ephes. iv. 7.) When we 
read of the poor woman who came in the press 
behind, and touched his garment, and was imme- 
diately cured; upon which Jesus perceived " in 
himself that virtue (rtv Mvapiv) had gone out of 
him," (Mark v. 30.) and that " the whole multi- 
tude sought to touch him : for there went virtue out 

* " Cum effecit miracula Christus, non locutus est ut Apos- 
toli, nomine alterius : sed iniperatorie, et instar Dei. Dixit 
olim Deus, Fiat lux, et facta est : Dixit Christus, Volo, Pur- 
gator, et purgatus est leprosus, Matt. viii. 3. Dixit Paralytica, 
Surge, attolle tuum tectum, et abi domum: abiitque sanus, 
Matt. ix. 6. Dixit mari, (saeviente tempestate) Site, obmutesce, 
Et quievit ventus et facta est tranquillitas magna. Non vox 
hominem sonat, est Deus ipse." Burnet, de Fide et Officiis, 
cap. vii. p. 123. On this subject, see Dr. Jamieson's Vindi- 
cation, lib. ii. cap. vi. 



168 Indirect Testimonies to the [chap, ill 



of him, and healed them all/' (Luke vi. 19.) we 
cannot but infer that a power of performing miracles 
was inherent in Jesus. The miraculous cures per- 
formed by the prophets and apostles, are always 
attributed to a superior agency ; but those of Christ 
sometimes to a divine virtue dwelling in him, some- 
times to the Father ; " The Father abiding in him, 
he doth the works/' (John xiv. 10.) And their 
being equally ascribed to the Father and himself, 
proves that they are One in mysterious union. 
Thus, when we consider the manner in which the 
miracles of Jesus are wrought, in his own name, at 
his own will, and by his own power ; a manner so 
different from that of the prophets and apostles in 
the miracles done by them, we cannot but regard it 
as a clear intimation of his divinity. 

LXIII. This class of arguments is by no means 
exhausted by the preceding sections : some texts of 
Scripture which might be referred to it, will come 
under consideration in the following chapters, and 
others might be enumerated: yet enough have been 
accumulated to shew its value and importance. The 
force of these testimonies cannot be easily eluded 
by the dexterity of criticism ; and, as many of them 
arise from a comparison of Scripture with Scripture, 
they serve to demonstrate the beautiful consistency 
and harmony of the sacred Writings. The argu- 
ment, moreover, is strictly cumulative. Every 
additional instance strengthens the conclusion ; and 
though some of the sections should not appear con- 



chap, in.] Divinity of Christ 169 

elusive ; yet when taken all together, they must be 
allowed to constitute a powerful, in my judgment, 
irrefragable, body of evidence in support of our 
Lord's essential deity. 



1 



CHAPTER IV 



DIVINE TITLES APPLIED TO CHRIST, A PROOF OF HIS 
DIVINITY. 



I. It is not the design of this chapter to enu- 
merate all the appellations of our Redeemer, which 
are to be found in the holy Scriptures, but only the 
Divine Titles expressly ascribed to him. If many 
of the names by which God the Father is charac- 
terized are applied to Christ, I know not how the 
conclusion can well be avoided that Christ is God. 
Had he been a mere man, the sacred Writers would 
surely never have called him by the same names 
and titles which they employ to denote the Father. 
Such misapplication of terms would have been in- 
consistent with common sense, and dangerous in 
the extreme, as having a tendency to lead mankind 
into polytheism and idolatrous worship : it cannot, 
therefore, be imputed to any sensible, much less 
inspired authors. Should it be found that the dis- 
tinguishing titles of the Father, such as God, Jeho- 
vah, Almighty, King of kings, and Lord of lords, 
Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last, are 
ascribed to the Son, we cannot but conclude, that, 



chap, iv.] Divine Titles applied to Christ, $c. 171 

unless the sacred Writers meant to mislead us, they 
intended by these appellations to intimate his pro- 
per divinity. We are then to inquire whether these 
names are really given to Christ in Scripture ; and 
we shall commence this investigation with the title 

GOD. 

II. Matt. i. 23. " Behold, a virgin shall be with 
child, and shall bring forth a Son, and they shall 
call his name Immanuel; which, being interpreted, 
is, God with us." As se to be called/' in Scripture 
phrase, is the same thing as " to be the only 
inquiry at present necessary is, whether this name 
given to Christ, be any certain argument of his 
divine nature. This, it should seem, cannot be 
inferred from the name itself, abstractedly consi- 
dered ; for several names occur compounded with 
El, God, from which it would be absurd to infer 
divinity in those to whom they are applied ; as Eli, 
my God, Elihu, my God himself, Uriel, the light of 
God, Gabriel, man of God, or rather, my strong 
God, Daniel, judicavit Deus, or God is my judge, 
Tabeal, good God, bonum se exhibuit Deus, 
Nevertheless, allowing this Socinian objection all 
the weight to which it is entitled, it may with justice 
be contended that the name Immanuel, in this 
application, implies the deity of Jesus, for this 
unanswerable reason, that it is the application of a 
prophecy to him, in which his divinity is expressly 



* See chap, ii. sect, xv. 



172 Divine Titles applied to Christ, [chap. iv. 



declared. St. Matthew introduces it in the follow- 
ing manner, " Now all this was done (i. e. the 
miraculous conception and birth of Christ,) that it 
might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by 
the prophet, saying, Behold a virgin shall be with 
child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall 
call his name Emmanuel ; which, being interpreted, 
is, God with us." The prophecy adduced is from 
Isaiah vii. 14. which, if we allow the infallibility of 
the Apostle, must, either in a literal or secondary 
sense, refer to our Saviour*. Now, the very 
passage itself, by the declaration that cc a virgin 
shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son," 
argues the birth of a superhuman being. But this 
is only one of a series of prophecies, all relating to 
Christ. This child to be thus miraculously born, 

* This is admirably treated by Bishop Chandler, Defence of 
Christianity, cap. iv. sect. ii. p. 316. et seq. See also Vitringa, 
Obs. Sac, lib. v. Kidder, Demonst, P. II. cap. v. Huet, Demonst. 
Evangel, prop. ix. cap. ix. Pearson, On the Creed, p. 270. and 
notes, Vitringa, Bishop Lovvth, and Roseniuuller On the Place. 
The only plausible objection to the literal application is, that 
I'vcc TrhyguSv) sometimes means no more than that a particular 
passage may be applied, by way of accommodation, to some 
particular event. This, however, is by no means certain (Park- 
hurst, 7r?v*j£o<y) but allowing it to be sometimes the case, the 
phrase in St. Matthew clearly implies a citation of a prophecy 
as such, and really fulfilled. " Formula citandi qua Evangelista 
utitur cap. i. 22. rovro SI oKov yiyovtv, Iva, orXugtfSjjTo pSev manifeste 
est argumentantis, non comparantis, quae magnopere diversa 
est ab alia ejusdem Evangelist as et aliorum, v. c. cap. ii. 17. 
tote t7TYtpu>% to p$ev, quam ut et similes in accommodatione saepe 
adhiberi lubenter concede »" Dathe in Jsa. vii. 14. 



chap, iv.] a Proof of his Divinity. 173 

this Immanuel, is represented as the God of Israel : 
" And he (the Assyrian) shall pass through Judah; 
he shall overflow and go over, he shall reach even 
to the rock ; and the stretching out of his wings 
shall fill the breadth of thy land, O Immanuel," 
(ch. viii. 8. ) And in the next chapter he is styled, 
the Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Father of 
Eternity, Prince of Peace, (ch. ix. 6.) St. Matthew, 
therefore, by affirming that Isaiah's prophecy of a 
child to be born of a virgin, who was to be the 
Mighty God, was fulfilled in our Lord, affirms that 
he was Immanuel in so peculiar a sense as to be 
really " God with us *." 

This accounts for the circumstance that Jesus is 
not called Immanuel in any subsequent part of the 
New Testament. The Prophet declares that the 
child to be born of a virgin, should be Wonderful, 
Counsellor, Mighty God, and therefore should be 
called Immanuel ; not that he was to be commonly 
distinguished by this name, but that he was to be, 
in reality what it imports, God with us. If Matt, 
i. 23. then, be taken, as it ought to be, in connec- 

* In Matt, it is " they shall call," xetherovo-t, but in the 
Hebrew n«npl, which may be rendered " thou shalt call," or 
" she shall call," i. e. the Virgin shall call : but both are pro- 
bably used impersonally, denoting the same thing, viz. he shall 
be called. See Surenhusius, Biblos. Katal. Owen's Modes of 
Quotation, p. 14. The authenticity of this portion of St. 
Matthew's gospel has been disputed, though without any just 
reasons. See chap, viii, sect. in. 



174 Divine Titles applied to Christ, [chap. iv. 

tion with the prophetic description of the Messiah 
in Isaiah, it will be evident, that when the Evan- 
gelist called him Immanuel, God with us, he meant 
by this designation to imply his divine nature. 

III. Luke i. 16, 17. " And many of the children 
of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God : and 
he shall go before him in the spirit and power of 
Elias," &c. It is acknowledged by Dr. Clarke, 

that the words, ' the Lord their God/ are, in 
" strictness of construction, immediately connected 
" with the following word Him; which must neces- 
et sarily be understood of Christ This construc- 
tion is confirmed by v. 76. of this chapter, where 
the Baptist is said to " go before the face of the 
Lord ;" and by chap. iii. 4. where the Baptist pro- 
claims, " Prepare ye the way of the Lord." Our 
Saviour, called " Lord God," in the first passage, is 
in the two latter called " the Lord for upon com- 
paring them, all the three passages relate to the 
same person. This is further confirmed by Malachi 
iii. 1. " Behold I send my messenger, and he shall 
prepare the way before me, and the Lord (Jehovah) 
whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, 
&c." The person, then, before whom the Baptist 
was to go was Jehovah or God ; which proves that 
we ought to abide by the strict construction of 
Luke i. 16, 17. which asserts that John the Baptist 



* Script Doct. of the Trinity, No. 534. 



chap, iv.] a Proof of his Divinity. 1*75 

was to go before " Him/' who in the verse preceding 
is called " the Lord their God." 

IV. John i. L " In the beginning was the 
Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word 
was God/' That the " Word/* in the introduction 
to St. John's Gospel, denotes our Redeemer Jesus 
Christ, and that the term " God," is here to be 
understood in the strictest sense, has been already 
shewn, chap. ii. sect. i. This text, then, is an 
invincible evidence of the title God, in the most 
absolute sense, being given to Christ. 

V. John xx. 28. " And Thomas answered and 
said unto him, My Lord and my God." Some con- 
sider these words as an assertion elliptically ex- 
pressed, i. e. " Thou art my Lord and my God 
others, as an exclamation, the nominative being put, 
as it often is, for the vocative*. It is not, how- 
ever, to be considered as a mere expression of asto- 
nishment; for that Jewish astonishment was thus 
expressed is wholly without proof or support. Nor 
can it be supposed that the Redeemer, who com- 
manded his followers " to swear not at all," (Matt, 
v. 34.) would have suffered St Thomas to take 
the name of God in vain, without censuring his 
profaneness. The words, therefore, are not a mere 
expression of surprise, and whether an exclamation 

* Mark v. 41. xv. 34. xiv. 36. Matt, i. 20. John xix. 3. 
Heb. i. 9. Ps» xxxv. 23. Ixxxiv. 3. But see Dr. Hales, New 
Analysis, vol. ii. p. 933. 



176 Divine Titles applied to Christ, [chap. iv. 

or not, they are personally addressed to Jesus, and 
Thomas acknowledges him by the titles <( Lord" 
and " God." 

Indeed, the only question is whether the words 
are addressed to Christ, and that they are actually 
so addressed, is evident. First, Because they are 
introduced, with itniv *ul«, <e said unto him," i. e. 
Christ. Secondly, Because, when the disciples told 
Thomas, who was not with them when Jesus came, 
" we have seen the Lord," Thomas, after his in- 
credulity was subdued, confesses him in the same 
character, " My Lord ;" and if Thomas acknow- 
ledges him by this title, he does likewise by that of 
<e God," since they are both addressed to the same 
person, and cannot be separated. Thirdly, Because 
" our Saviour's reply makes it absolutely certain, 
" that the words of Thomas, though in the form 
u of an exclamation, amount to a confession of 
ee faith, and were equivalent to a direct assertion of 
" our Saviour's divinity. Christ commends Tho- 
" mas's acknowledgment, while he condemns the 
" tardiness with which it was made, but to what 
" did this acknowledgment amount ? That Christ 
" was xfyiof and Geo* * h e. Lord and God. Our 

* Middleton, Doct. of the Gr. Art. p. 382. A writer in the 
Christian Observer for June, 1818, p. 348. remarks, that the 
words of Thomas " are not properly capable of any other in- 
" terpretation ; for either they import that Christ was his 
" Lord and his God ; or they are perfectly unmeaning, and in 
" that case would hardly have been preserved to us in the 
ts records of eternal truth/' 



chap, iv.] a Proof of his Divinity. 177 

Saviour's words are, " Thomas, because thou hast 
seen me, thou hast believed ; blessed are they that 
have not seen, and yet have believed and they 
clearly prove that Thomas's ejaculatory address 
amounted to a confession in him, as his Lord and 
God. 

A similar confession in the form of an exclama- 
tion, is recorded in the former part of this chapter, 
in the case of Mary, who at first supposed our 
Saviour to be the gardener ; but upon his address- 
ing her by name (C she turned herself, and saith 
unto him, Rabboni ; which is to say, Master," 
(v. 16.) Upon recognizing- him, she acknowledged 
him as her Lord and Master, the Messiah, pre- 
dicted by the prophets. Thomas, upon being con- 
vinced that the person he saw was Jesus, acknow- 
ledges him not only as his Lord, but also as his 
God, which our Saviour is so far from repressing 
or reprimanding^ as he undoubtedly would have 
done, had he been only a man like ourselves, that 
he praises the confession of Thomas, and pronounces 
a blessing upon those who have not seen, and yet 
have believed ; that is, believed like Thomas in his 
real divinity. 

VI. Acts xx. 28. tc Take heed, therefore, unto 
yourselves, and unto all the flock over the which 
the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed 
the church of God which he hath purchased with 
his own blood." Supposing this the true reading, 
it is undeniable that our Saviour is here called God ; 

N 



178 Divine Titles applied to Christ, [chap. nr. 

but it is a matter of no small difficulty to ascertain 
the true reading. The variations in all amount to 
six ; the received text toZ ©sou, toZ Kvgtov, roZ Xgurlov, 

TOU KvpiOV ©£0U, TOU ©£©U KQU KvplQV, and TOU K.VptoV Xal 

©£ou. Of these, Wetstein and Griesbach prefer 
too Ku^ou, and if this preference be just, the passage 
has no relation to our present subject : but if either 
the received reading, or Kvptov h.ou ©fou be genuine, 
it will follow that the title God is given to Christ, 
and his divinity will consequently be established. 
It is, therefore, proper to review briefly the evidence 
for these several readings. 

1st. ©sou is supported by that most ancient and 
venerable MS. B, the Vatican, and seventeen others; 
by the Latin Vulgate, the Philoxenian Syriac in the 
text, the iEthiopic, according to Mill, though Gries- 
bach thinks it doubtful, the Peshito or Old Syriac 
perhaps ; and it is quoted or referred to by a great 
many of the ancient Fathers. 

2dly. Tov Kug/oy v.oa ©sou is supported by one 
MS. in uncial letters, G, or Harl. 5684. preserved 
in the British Museum, and very many more, by 
the Complutensian and Plantin editions ; by the 
Sclavonic version, and by Theophylact. " If num- 
" bers," says Michaelis, " were to decide the ques- 
" tion, this reading would be preferred ; but of the 
" MSS. which contain it, none is of high anti- 
" quity." Mathai, induced by the numerous testi- 
monies of MSS. to this reading, has not hesitated 
to introduce it into his critical edition of the New 
Testament. If this reading be admitted, the canon 



chap, iv.] a Proof of his Divinity. 179 

newly revived by Mr. Granville Sharp will apply 
to it, and it cannot otherwise be correctly rendered 
than — " the church of him being, (or, who is) both 
Lord and God f thus affording a strong proof of 
the divinity of Christ. 

3dly. Kvp!ov is supported by some of the most 
ancient MSS. namely, A, C, D, E, and nine others, 
more modern ; by the Coptic, Sahidic, Armenian, 
and Philoxenian in the margin ; and by several of 
the Fathers. 

Thus the external testimony is nearly equally 
divided between the three disputed readings ; or if 
it be thought to preponderate a little on the side of 
the reading Kvpfov, the internal evidence is rather in 
favour of 0£ov. The phrase " the church of God," 
occurs in eleven other places of St. Paul's Epistles * ; 
while " the church of the Lord," occurs no where 
in the New Testament. Besides 0eou might easily 
give occasion to the other readings, whereas none 
could so easily give occasion to ©sou. Upon the 
whole, then, the received text is at least as well, 
perhaps better supported than any of the other 
readings ; yet much stress cannot be laid upon a 
passage whose genuine reading is so doubtful f . 

* 1 Cor. i. 2. x. 32. xi. 1G. 22. xv. 9. 2 Cor. i. 1. Gal. i. 13. 
1 Thess ii. 14. 2 Thess. i. 4. 1 Tim. iii. 5. 15. The phrase 
ixxXna-ia rov Kv^iov, usually rendered " the congregation of the 
Lord," often occurs in the Septuagint. 

t See Griesbach's note in loc. Middleton, Doct. of the Gr. 
Art. in loc. Nolan, Inquiry > p. 280 and 51 i. Hales, Faith 
in the Trinity, Lett. X. Michaelis, Introduction, ch. vi. § 13. 

n2 



180 Divine Titles applied to Christ, [chap. iv. 

VII. Rom. ix. 5. " — of whom, as concerning 
the fleshy Christ came, who is over all, God blessed 
for ever." This translation, according to which 
Christ is expressly called God, has been amply 
vindicated, chap. ii. sect. iv. 

VIII. Ephes. v. 5. " For this ye know, that no 
whoremonger, &c. hath any inheritance in the king- 
dom of Christ and of God/' Iv fixtnXsU tou Xojct- 

tou xa\ @eou. This text is adduced by Granville 
Sharp in proof that the same person is in Scripture 
denominated Christ and God ; and the proper ren- 
dering undoubtedly is — " in the kingdom of him 
being (or, who is) the Christ and God." This 
construction is required by a Greek idiom invariably 
observed in the New Testament ; and so it was 
universally understood by the ancient Fathers, as 
Mr. Wordsworth has fully shewn in his Six Letters. 
This text may, then, be adduced as a decisive proof, 
that, in the judgment of St. Paul, Christ is entitled 
to the appellation of God *. 

* The two following texts belong to this division of the sub- 
ject ; and they are placed in a note on account of their being 
too dubious to be adduced in proof of our position. The 
first of the texts alluded to is, 2 Thess. i. 12. aula, rhv %<*pv toS 
0eo£ rtpuv no,) Kt^iof 'i^aoD Xpo-lov, which Mr. Sharp renders, 
" according to the grace of Jesus Christ, our God and Lord," 
(p. 38.) : but Bishop Middleton doubts the validity of this 
proof, because Kv^oq is a word which has a peculiar construc- 
tion : it so far partakes of the nature of proper names, that it 
sometimes dispenses with the article, where other words would 
require it. Ktyos 'tonSc Xp»c-1e$, collectively, is a title of our 



chap, iv.] a Proof of his Divinity. 181 

IX. 1 Tim, iii. 16. " And without controversy, 
great is the mystery of godliness ; God was mani- 
fest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit/' &c. It is 
well known that the true reading of this text has 
been the subject of much dispute, and that the 
celebrated Griesbach, in his edition of the New 
Testament substitutes instead of ®£o?. If his 
decision be correct, we are not hastily to conclude 
that the passage is irrelevant to our present purpose, 
as it may be thus pointed and translated — iC that 
thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave 
thyself in the house of God, which is the church of 
the living God, (the pillar and ground of the truth, 
and confessedly great is the mystery of godliness) 

Lord familiar to the writers of the Epistles ; and KtJpo? is so 
incorporated with the proper name, as to be subject to the 
same law. At least no proof can be obtained that Kvpw is 
commonly to be separated from the proper name, in order to 
be joined with some preceding attributive. Besides, the ancient 
Fathers have taken little notice of this text, as appears from 
the researches of Mr. Wordsworth, and this militates strongly 
against Mr. Sharp's translation. As these reasons of the 
learned Bishop Middleton appear conclusive, 2 Thess. i. 12. 
cannot be appealed to in proof that Christ is called God. 

The other text is, 1 Tim. v. 21. ivumov rov Qsov net) Kvpiov 
'Itiuov X^oJoy, which Mr. Sharp renders, " before the God and 
Christ, Jesus,'' or rather, " before Jesus, the God and Christ," 
(p. 41.) The observations above on 2 Thess. i. 12. are equally 
applicable to this; in addition to which it may be observed 
that many MSS. Versions, and Fathers, omit the word Kv^oy, 
and Griesbach prefixes his mark of probable spuriousness. 
Mr. Wordsworth has found no support of Mr. Sharp's con- 
struction among the Fathers. 



182 Divine Titles applied to Christ, [chap. iv. 



who was manifested in the flesh/' &c. ; referring oq, 
who, to BioZ £mtos, the living God # . According to 
this construction, the divinity of Christ is plainly 
declared ; and therefore with a view to avoid its 
force, it is rendered in the Unitarian version, te He 
who was manifested in the flesh, was justified by 
the Spirit/' &c. But admitting that U may be 
translated " he who/' it must still refer to some 
person, and the only person mentioned either in 
this, or the two preceding verses, is God; whence 
it follows that (e he who was manifested in the 
flesh," was God. To refer h to an antecedent not 
expressed, as the Unitarians do who refer it to 
Christ, is not allowable, except in cases of necessity. 
To refer the masculine og to the neuter pwrripiou, 
whatever may be implied by this word, is a direct 
violation of grammar. 

Thus the reading o$, if it be the true one, will 
not essentially benefit the Unitarian cause ; but the 
received text has been ably defended by several 

* This construction will strike the reader with more force by 
consulting the original: — im? ia\)v Uxtao-U ©EOT tfi{io$ (alvXoq 

Ttai ifyxiapa, tjjs 1 c^j}$s/«$, v.a\ o[AoXoyov[A.tvco<; piya. l<j\) to t»js ivat$i\z,$ 
pvalriptovyO'Z IpctvtpuSv), x. t. X. This is the construction pointed 
out by Professor Cramer. (See Woide's Preface to the Cod. 
Alex. p. 32.) Dean Magee (Disc, on Atonement, Post, to 
App. p. 100.) says that Storr, in his Comment alioncs Theo- 
logies, has satisfactorily shewn, that, admitting o? to be the 
true reading, the divinity of Christ would stand upon ground 
as firm as if the word @eof were the received reading of the 
text. I have not been able to procure these Commentationes 
of Storr. 



chap, iv.] a Proof of his Divinity. 183 

eminent writers, and, after an attentive examination 
of the evidence on both sides, I am convinced that 
0£og is the true reading. Agreeably to the design 
of this work, I shall give a short summary of the 
evidence by which ®eoc is supported. 

It is admitted that all known manuscripts read 
®£Q5, with the exception of six, and one which has 
o # . But two out of these six, A and C, cannot 
fairly be adduced against ®eo?, as there have been 
considerable doubts respecting the true readings in 
this passage ; and Griesbach, though he assumes 
certainty to both in the notes to the New Testa- 
ment, yet in his Symbolce Criticce, he so expresses 
himself, as if he were content to rank them as mere 
neutrals in the contest. It is probable, on the con- 
trary, that these MSS. originally supported the 
received reading. A, the Alexandrian manuscript, 
is, in this passage so much defaced, that it is quite 
impossible now to decide the fact; but Junius, 
Huish, Wotton, Pell, Mill, and Grabe, who first 
examined it, unanimously declare ©«o? to be the 
prime reading. Dr. Berriman also, in company 
with two friends, Ridley and Gibson, examined the 
MS. in the sun, with the assistance of a glass, 
and the result of their investigation was, that the 
genuine and original reading of this MS. was 

* " Codices A, C, F, G, gr, 17. 73. legunt o?, D habet o, 
caeteri quos novimus, omnes, etiam Mathaeiani 13, Alteriani 8 
et Birchiani 32, exhibent $so?." Griesbach. 



184 Divine Titles applied to Christ, [chap, iv, 

©2, i. e. ©so? * As the high character of these 
witnesses, renders their testimony perfectly unex- 
ceptionable,, there scarcely remains a shadow of 
doubt that A supports the received text. 

It is likewise probable that C, the Ephrem re- 
^criptus, supports the received text. The line in 
the midst of the letter theta is vanished, but the 
upper horizontal line over the word OS is still re- 
maining 1 , which decides the abbreviation, and proves 
that the first letter cannot be omicron, but must be 
theta. Wetstein and Griesbach, indeed, contend 
that this line must have been added by some latter 
hand, as it is thicker and more unskilfully drawn, 
than is usual, in this manuscript f . But a suppo- 
sition of this kind deserves little regard : the fact of 
the existence of the upper line is admitted ; and 
though it may be a little thicker than usual, that is 
not a sufficient reason for declaring it a latter addi- 
tion. For these reasons it seems clear that the 
received reading in 1 Tim. i. 16. is supported by 
both these MSS. particularly by the ancient and 
valuable Alexandrian MS. At any rate, if they 
cannot be adduced in favour of ©£o?, they cannot, 
with any reason, be adduced against it, and must 
be regarded as neutrals. 

* Berriman's Crit. Diss, on 1 Tim. iii. 16. Nolan's Inquiry, 
p. 285. Hales's Faith in the Trin. Lett. IX. 

+ " Crassiori atque imperitiori ductu ita exarata est OS, ut 
aliam manum prodere videatur." Wetstein : see Griesbach, 
Symbols Criticce, p. 8. 



chap, iv.] a Proof of his Divinity. 185 

Hence, there are only four manuscripts which 
certainly read og. But " this reading/' says Gries- 
bach, " is supported by the most ancient witnesses 
" of all classes, and is recommended also by inter- 
" nal indications of its truth. ®sos f on the con- 
" trary, was neither the primitive reading of the 
" Alexandrine, nor of the Western recension ; nei- 
" ther can it be defended by arguments taken from 
" the character of the reading itself, but is sup- 
" ported only by MSS. of a later date, belonging 
" chiefly to the Constantinopolitan recension ; and 
" by the doubtful credit of the more modern Greek 
" Fathers ; nor can it be found in any monument 
" of antiquity, anterior to the fourth century*." 
This conclusion appears inconsistent even with his 
own principles. Of the four manuscripts produced 
in support of ©j, only one, 17, the Colbert MS. 
belongs to the Alexandrine recension ; for 73, the 
Upsal MS. Griesbach does not rank as Alexandrine, 
and moreover refers it to the eleventh or twelfth 
century. Now the evidence of 17 is overpowered 
by that of the following MS. viz. 6. 30. 23. 31. 37. 
39. 46, 47, all which he considers nearly allied to 
17, and which read Se6g f . Besides 17 occasionally 
accords with the Western and Constantinopolitan 
recensions, and is referred by Griesbach to the 
eleventh or twelfth century. Thus the reading h 

* Note in loc. p. 429. 

t Symbols Critics, vol. ii. p. 134. et seq. 



186 Divine Titles applied to Christ, [chap. iv. 

has not the support of the Alexandrine recension, 
which he prizes so highly. 

The remaining MSS. P, the Augean, and G, 
the Boernerian, are Western manuscripts, and have 
so striking a similarity, that Wetstein conjectured 
that the latter was copied from the former. Though 
this conjecture is perhaps unfounded # , yet the best 
critics have pronounced them very nearly allied f ; 
they can, therefore, be considered only in the light 
of one witness. But this cannot be deemed suf- 
ficient evidence of the Western recension. 

Hence, upon Griesbach's own system of classi- 
fication, there is not adequate manuscript authority 
for the reading o?. The greatest number of manu- 
scripts that can fairly be pleaded in its favour, 
amount to four ; and when it is considered that 17 
cannot be adduced in opposition to eight kindred 
manuscripts ; and that F and G are so nearly allied 
as to constitute one testimony, the evidence is 
reduced to two independent authorities. These, 
surely, cannot, for a moment, be allowed to out- 
weigh the evidence of every other unmutilated 
manuscript, probably amounting all together, to 
nearly one hundred and fifty, in favour of the 
received reading, Bsog, especially as we have the 
strongest grounds for believing that such was the 

* Marsh's Note to Michaelis, vol. ii. p, 674. 
t Griesbach, Prcef. p. xxii. Michaelis, Introduction, cap. 
viii. p. 210 and 225. 



chap, iv.] a Proof of his Divinity. 187 

reading of the Ephrem and Alexandrine manu- 
scripts. 

Of the versions, the Arabic in the Polyglott 
Bible, and the Sclavonic, alone exhibit ©*o?, all the 
rest expressing either oq or o. The majority of ver- 
sions, it must be acknowledged, cannot be adduced 
in support of ; but as little can they be pleaded 
in favour of h ; for it is not absolutely certain that 
any of them express this reading. Dr. Laurence, 
after a learned and critical examination of the 
ancient versions, thus concludes, " Upon the whole, 
" therefore, with respect to the versions, one may 
" be deemed perhaps as dubious; three others, 
" instead of necessarily reading o$, probably read 
" o ; and the remaining three, instead of indif- 
" ferently reading 6q or o, indisputably read 6 * *' 

With respect to quotations, all the Latin Fathers, 
following the Vulgate, unquestionably support d 9 
quod. The Greek Fathers are not unanimous; 
some reading cV, jievharps, for this admits of some 
dispute; while ®th is sanctioned by Ignatius, 
Hippolytus, Athanasius, Gregory Nyssene, Chry- 
sostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret, Euthalius, 
Damascene, (Ecumenius, Theophylact, and some 
others. The evidence of the Fathers, therefore, 
decidedly preponderates in favour of ©for. 

* Remarks upon Grieshach's Classification of 31SS. p. 8i. 
Griesbach, however, says, that the Coptic, Sahidic, and Phi- 
ioxenian in the margin, read o>. Not understanding the lan- 
guage, I cannot judge of the two former, but the Phiioxenian 
version is, in my opinion, ambiguous. 



] 88 Divine Titles applied to Christ, [chap. iv. 

Griesbach thus states the internal evidence. 
" 1st. From each a good sense may be extracted,, 
" nay, the same. 2dly. The reading- h is more 
" difficult and unusual than the rest. 3dly. From 
" the reading the origin of the rest may be 
" most easily explained. 5 ' Of these reasons, the 
first decides nothing ; the second is not of much 
weight, as the canon, that the most difficult and 
unusual reading is to be preferred, cannot be 
assented to without many limitations ; and the third 
is a mere begging of the question, as others are of 
a directly contrary opinion*. — From this brief 
review of the various readings of 1 Tim. iii. 16. it 
appears that ©eo? is the genuine and original read- 
ing ; and, consequently, that it may be produced as 
decisive evidence that the title of God is given in 
Scripture to our blessed Lord. 

X. Titus ii. 13. " Looking for that blessed 
hope, and the glorious appearing of our great 
God and Saviour, Jesus Christ," as it should be 
rendered, according to the explanation of it in 
chap. ii. sect. ix. 

XI. Heb. i. 8. " But unto the Son he saith, 
Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever/' These 

* Laurence, Remarks on the Classification of MSB. &c. 
p. 83. note. Hales's Faith in the Trinity, vol. ii. p. 102. 
Nolan's Inquiry, p. 282. note. To the works here cited, the 
reader is referred, for a full and satisfactory vindication of the 
reading ©soj. 



chap, iv.] a Proof of his Divinity. 189 

words are clearly and unequivocally addressed to 
the Son, and 6 Qsog, according to a common usage, 
stands for the vocative case. This is sufficiently 
evident from the context ; and the words, moreover, 
cannot grammatically admit any other construction. 
If o ©so? be the nominative, and the clause be ren- 
dered with Wakefield and others, " God is thy 
throne for ever and ever," o Qpovog should have been 
without the article, as being the predicate of the 
proposition *. O ®eh$, then, cannot be the subject 
of the proposition ; and the only alternative left is 
to understand it as the vocative. 

This is so undeniably evident, that some of those 
who favour the Unitarian tenets, have been com- 
pelled to admit that God is here in the vocative case, 
and consequently that the Son is so denominated. 
But in their unwillingness to acknowledge this tes- 
timony to his divinity, they have recourse to an 
inferior sense of the term, and assert that it was 
originally applied to Solomon in the Psalm from 
which the address is quoted : hence they contend 
that the Son is called God only in the same sense as 
men are sometimes so called in the Old Testament. 
To this it may be answered, that the subject of the 

* The rendering " God is thy throne/' would require the 
Greek to be Gpoyo? aov 6 Oebg, not o 0goFo«. See Middleton, also 
chap. i. sect. i. " Omnes (scil. Sancti Patres) uno consensu 
o @£o? hoc in loco vocative acceperunt, prout in Psalmis fre- 
quente a 70 usurpatur, et alioqui familiare est Graecis, Atticis 
praesertim, nominandi casum vocative sumere." Bull, Def* 
Fid, Nic. sect. ii. cap. iv. § 5. 



190 Divine Titles applied to Christ, [chap. iv. 

forty-fifth Psalm from which the address is cited, is 
not the marriage of Solomon with Pharaoh's daugh- 
ter, but the Messiah's character and reign, as is 
evident from the Apostles referring it to the Son 
in the passage under consideration *. Now, if this 
Psalm is a prediction of the Messiah, the very 
grounds of the Socinian plea are taken away ; for 
if the term " God" is not in the Psalm applied to 
Solomon, it proves nothing as to an inferior sense. 
Nay, more, it must be taken in its highest sense, or 
the Apostle's argument in this part of the Epistle to 
the Hebrews will have no validity. He is proving 
Christ's superiority to the angels, and for this pur- 
pose he introduces this quotation from the xlvth 
Psalm ; but if the term God is to be understood in 
such a lower sense, as is supposed to be applicable 
to Solomon, how does it prove Christ's superiority 
to the angels ? If men may be called gods, the 
angels have certainly a greater right to this august 
appellation ; and the Son's superiority to them, 
cannot be proved by a title which may be borne by 
mere human beings. We may, therefore, safely 
conclude, that our Lord is in Heb. L 8. denominated 
God in the highest sense of the word f . 

XII. 2 Pet. i. 1. " — through the righteous- 

* That the xlv th Psalm relates to the Messiah, is proved by 
many commentators, and by Hales, Dissertations, Diss. IX. 
Bishop Horsley, Sermons upon this Psalm. 

■f The Fathers apply Heb. i. 8. to Christ in proof of his 
deity. Leslie, Socinian Controversy, p. 268. 



chap, iv.] a Proof of his Divinity. 191 

ness of God and our Saviour, Jesus Christ." The 
Greek is toZ 0fou ax) o-wt^o? 'Iuo-ou XpHrrov, which, 
according to Granville Sharp's rule, should be ren- 
dered, " through the righteousness of our God and 
Saviour, Jesus Christ," or " of him being (or, who 
is) our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ." The Greek 
idiom absolutely requires this translation, and Mr. 
Sharp says that it was so rendered in the versions 
of WicklifFe, Coverdale, Mathews, Cranmer, in the 
Bishops' Bible, the Geneva, the Rhemish, as well as 
by Doddridge, Wesley, and others. It is, then, an 
unequivocal declaration that Jesus Christ is our 
God and Saviour *. 

XIII. 1 John v. 20. " And we know that the 
Son of God is come, and hath given us an under- 
standing, that we may know him that is true ; and 
we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus 
Christ. This is the true God and eternal life." 
It has been questioned whether the last clause be 
spoken of Christ or of God. By " him that is 
true," it is alleged, we are to understand the Father, 
and therefore the pronoun qvtos may refer to him, 
and not to Jesus Christ, the immediate antecedent. 

* It must not be dissembled that Mr. Wordsworth has not 
been able to support this exposition by the authority of the 
Fathers ; which he accounts for by the circumstance that the 
second Epistle of Peter is but seldom quoted by the Fathers. 
The reason of its being seldom quoted was probably because 
it was not universally received as canonical in the early ages of 
the church. 



192 Divine Titles applied to Christ, [chap. iv. 

The advocates of this opinion attempt to prove no 
more than the bare possibility of such a reference ; 
that it must, on the contrary, refer to Christ, is 
confirmed by several unanswerable reasons. 

First, The nearest antecedent to oZrog, this per- 
son, is Jesus Christ, and the general rule, with 
regard to demonstrative pronouns is, to consider 
them as referring to the immediate antecedent. 
Some exceptions undoubtedly there are ; but they 
are only in cases when indisputable necessity re- 
quires them to be referred to the remote antecedent, 
and this necessity will be apparent from the context 
and the scope of the discourse *. In the present 
instance, no necessity of this kind exists, except on 
the assumption that Christ is not the true God, 
which is to beg the question in dispute. 

The reference of the pronoun to the remote 
antecedent, requires us to interpret " him that is 
true" of the Father ; an interpretation, as appears 
to my mind, extremely doubtful, if not altogether 
erroneous. One leading object of this Epistle is to 
prove that Jesus Christ was come in the flesh, 
(ch. i. 1, 2. &c.) in opposition to the Docetae, and 
that he was the eternal Son of God, in opposition 
to the Cerinthians and Ebionites : hence he is pro- 
perly denominated " him that is true," as being 
really both God and Man. St. John would scarcely 
say that Christ had given them understanding to 

* Glass, Phil. Sac. p. 154—157. ed. Dathe. Dr. Gerard's 
Institutes, § 968. 



chap, iv.] a Proof of his Divinity. 193 

know the true God, who was already revealed in 
the Old Testament, but he might say with great 
propriety, that Christ had given them understanding 
to know that he himself was the true Messias, and 
actually come in the flesh. Besides, h t&> via uvtqv 
seems to be put in apposition with h tw cZxn&ivu, 
which confirms the idea that " him that is true," 
means the Son. The Unitarian version, Rosen - 
miiller, and others, I am aware, render it, " we 
are in him that is true through his Son Jesus 
Christ," I think improperly, as the two clauses 
appear to be in apposition ; and if they are in 
apposition, " him that is true" cannot refer to the 
Father but to the Son *. 

Secondly, According to the last clause, the same 
person is both " the true God and Eternal Life." 
This latter expression is twice ascribed to Christ in 
this very chapter ; " And this is the record, that 
God hath given to us eternal life ; and this life is 

* The Syriac favours this interpretation, " the Son of God 
is come, and hath given us understanding that we might know 
him that is true, and that we might be in him that is true, in 
his Son Jesus Christ." The pronoun uvrov may perhaps appear 
an objection ; but in reality it is not so : it refers to God men- 
tioned in the beginning of the verse ; et the Son of God is 
come — and we are in him that is true, even in hjs Son Jesus 
Christ," i. e, the Son of God mentioned before. " Nobis 
maxime arridet illorum mens, qui verba ista et sumus in illp 
vero, de Christo accipiunt. Sensus enim suavissimus juxta et 
gravissimus hie est ; et sumus in iilo vero, id est, in vero illo 
Propheta, Sacerdote, Rege, Messia, in V. T. toties promisso, 
.et in N. T. exhibito." Bisterfeld, De Uno Deo, p. 10. 

0 



194 Divine Titles applied to Christ, [chap. iv. 

in his Son " These things have I written unto 
you that believe on the name of the Son of God, 
that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and 
that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God," 
(v. 11. 13.) And more expressly in the beginning 
of the Epistle ; " The Life was manifested, and we 
have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you 
that Eternal Life which was with the Father, and 
was manifested unto us ;" where it is acknowledged 
by almost all commentators, Unitarians not excepted, 
that u Eternal Life" is a title given to Christ. In 
many other passages, he is styled 6e Life," as being 
the author of eternal life *. Now, the conclusion 
of the Epistle bears a very striking accordance with 
the beginning, <€ We show unto you that Eternal 
Life which was with the Father, and was manifested 
unto us," ce This is the true God and Eternal 
Life." Mr. Wardlaw's observation on this is very 
just : " Is not this as if the Apostle had said, This 
" is he of whom 1 spoke in the commencement of 
" my letter : He is the Life, the Eternal Life, 
" whom I then mentioned, as the great subject of 
" apostolic testimony f." 

Thirdly, If the last clause be referred to God 
the Father, it will produce a tautology of the most 
trifling kind. " Him that is true," and " the true 
God," being the same, the Apostle will be made to 
aver, that " the true God, he is the true God." 

* John xi. 25. xiv. 6. Col. iii. 3, 4. See Parkhurst, Lex. 3. 
t JDiscourses on the Socinian Controversy, p. 60. " Initium 
epistolse et finis convenient." Bengel. 



chap, iv.] a Proof of his Divinity. 195 

Fourthly, Those of the Fathers who have cited 
this text, interpret it of the Son, and produce it in 
proof of his divinity *. 

For these reasons, we may accede to the opinion 
of Doddridge, that " it is an argument of the deity 
" of Christ, which almost all those who have wrote 
" in its defence have urged ; and which, I think, 
" none who have opposed it, have so much as 
" appeared to answer f." 

XIV. Jude 4. te — denying the only Lord God, 
and our Lord Jesus Christ rov phou ffppfrw &£ou 
xou Ku^ioi/ ipZv *Iy<rovu Xgurrov, which may be ren- 
dered, according to Granville Sharp's rule, " — de- 
nying our only potentate and Lord, Jesus Christ/' 
As truth ought to be the object of the theolo- 
gian, it must not be disguised that Griesbach re- 
jects Gtov, God, from his text. His authorities for 

* Dr. Waterland, Serm. VI. at Lady Moyeifs. Randolph, 
Find. P. II. p. 34. 

+ " y tfim xluivios. Some MSS. omit i, and some insert a 
second article before aXvnas. One of these emendations is 
necessary: I prefer the latter, because of ovro? preceding." 
Middleton. But from examining Griesbach, the evidence for 
the omission of the article appears much stronger than for the 
insertion of a second ; and though he does not expunge it 
from the text, yet he places his mark denoting £w>? (without 
the article) to be a " lectio non spernenda." It may be ob- 
served, that when the subject is a demonstrative pronoun, the 
predicate after elpi has the article sometimes prefixed ; and 
*' true God" and " eternal life" are both evidently predicated 
of 

o2 



196 Divine Titles applied to Christ, [chap, it, 

it are the Alexandrine, Vatican, and Ephrem MSS. 
in uncial letters, and some MSS. of a more modern 
date, with the Coptic, Armenian, Vulgate, Ephhr., 
Didym., Chrysostom, Cyrennius, Lucif., Cassio- 
dorus, Beda. This, undoubtedly, is strong evi- 
dence, especially as no uncial MS. can be alleged 
in support of @foi/ 7 and it is therefore probable that 
we ought to acquiesce in Griesbach's decision. 
Yet, in this case, though the text cannot be pro- 
duced in proof that the title of God is given to our 
Lord, it will still be a clear evidence to the truth of 
his omnipotence and divinity. Granting Griesbach's 

text to be Correct, tov povou htmorviv na) xvgiov fipuv 

'Ivhtqvv XgHTTov, cc the only potentate and Lord of us, 
Jesus Christ," as Granville Sharp observes, cc is equi- 
cc valent to a full declaration of Christ's divinity, as 
" well as of his almighty power It is most 
certain that, even rejecting 0e&r, our Saviour is, in 
this instance, styled not only " Lord/' but also 
" the only potentate or sovereign," which can imply 
no less than omnipotence, and omnipotence can be 
the attribute of God alone. 

XV. Revel, xxii. 6. " — the Lord God of the 
holy prophets sent his angel in v. 16. of the 

* On the Def, Art. p. 56. Christ is denominated ho-worys, 
2 Pet. ii. 1. and other places, for which see Parkhurst, Lex. in 
voc. The Peshito or Old Syriac is, " and deny him who is the 
only Lord God, even our Lord Jesus Christ which both 
shews that the Syriac translator read 0«ov, and that he under- 
stood the whole clause of our Lord. 



chap, iv.] a Proof of his Divinity. 197 

same chapter, it is said, " I, Jesus, have sent mine 
angel :" therefore Jesus is the Lord God of the holy 
prophets. See chap. iii. sect. xlix. 

XVI. Isaiah ix. 6. u For unto us a child is 
born, unto us a son is given, and the government 
shall be upon his shoulder ; and his name shall be 
called Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God," 
&c. See chap. ii. sect. xv. 

XVII. The foregoing instances render it abso- 
lutely certain that our blessed Lord is, in the New 
Testament, denominated God ; the natural infer- 
ence from which is, that he is really God, pos- 
sessed of the divine attributes and perfections. 
Many Socinians, who have been compelled by the 
overpowering evidence to own that he is styled 
God in the Scriptures, have maintained that this 
appellation is applied to him in a lower or qualified 
sense. Were this the case, it must be deemed a 
strange procedure in the first preachers of Chris- 
tianity, whose grand object it was to build the 
church upon the divine Unity, and to convert the 
world from the vanities of polytheism to the one 
true and living God. It would have contravened 
their great object to give to a mere man the title 
by which they distinguished the supreme God and 
Father of all ; the supposition, then, is incredible, 
that the Apostles and Evangelists addressed the 
title of God to our Lord in a sense not implying 
divinity. 



198 Divine Titles applied to Christ, [chap. iv. 

The Unitarian and Arian plea of a subordinate 
sense attaching to the word God, rests upon insuf- 
ficient grounds, and, upon examination, will appear 
no better than an idle cavil. Should it be admitted 
that, in a few instances, the term God may be used 
in a lower sense, this will not invalidate those 
examples where it is given to Jesus Christ in its 
highest signification. And that it is sometimes so 
applied is a fact established beyond all reasonable 
dispute, for it is accompanied with certain epithets 
and circumstances, which are wholly incompatible 
with the supposition of a lower or inferior sense ; 
as John i. 1. (chap. ii. sect, i.) Rom. ix. 5. (chap. ii. 
sect, iv.) Tit. ii. 13. (chap. ii. sect ix.) Heb. i. 8. 
(sect. xi. of this chap.) 1 John v. 20. (sect. xiii. of 
this chap.) By referring to the sections here cited, 
satisfactory evidence will be found to substantiate 
this affirmation. Now, if it is clearly shewn that 
our Saviour is ever called God, in the most strict 
sense of the word, whatever may be its meaning in 
certain other applications of the term, it is abun- 
dantly sufficient to overthrow the pretensions either 
of Arianism or Unitarianism. 

This, I apprehend, is a sufficient answer to the 
objection advanced by our adversaries , against the 
argument which we have been discussing, if it 
should even be granted that the appellation of God 
is occasionally used in an inferior sense ; but, per- 
haps, it is not necessary to make this concession. 
As to the Unitarians, it is requisite for them, in 
order to maintain the consistency of their scheme* 



chap, iv.] a Proof of his Divinity. 199 

to shew that this title is given to men. Were it, in 
a few instances, attributed to angels and superior 
intelligences, it might still be argued that our Lord 
was a divine, though created, person it is incum- 
bent upon the Unitarian, then, to prove such an 
inferior sense, as allows its application to human 
beings; this, I believe, cannot be proved. It is 
matter of doubt at least whether any example can 
be produced wherein the term " God" is unequivo- 
cally applied to men, as will be evident from a short 
examination of some of the most plausible instances 
to which appeal has been made. 

Exod. vii. 1. " And the Lord said unto Moses, 
See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh." If this 
be compared with Exod. iv. 16. " — he shall be to 
thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him 
instead of God ;" it will be evident that the former 
is an elliptical expression denoting that Moses should 
be in God's stead, God's embassador or substitute to 
Pharaoh, This is confirmed by ver. 2. " Thou 
shalt speak all that I command thee; and Aaron thy 
brother shall speak unto Pharaoh/' &c.* — Exod. 

* Patrick and Vatablus in loc. Glass, Phil. Sac. p. 1031. 
Q»nV« ynr\l for a»n^«^ an ellipsis of b not being uncommon. 
Noldius, Concord. Partic. Heb. p. 415. Waltheri Ellipses 
Hebraicce, ed. Schulz, p. 140. " Dedi te Deum Pharahoni. 
Hoc est, in hoc munere obeundo, ipse Pharahonem non allo- 
queris, frater tuus verba faciet. Eris instar Dei, cujus oracula 
ad Pharahonem, per Aaronem prophetam deferentur. Vide 
sup. iv. 16. Sequentia manifesto ostendunt hunc esse sensum, 
nec capio qui haec non viderint Rabbini. Indecorum forte 
visum est Deum dici Mosem." Le Clerc, Comm, in loc. 



200 Divine Titles applied to Christ, [chaf. iv. 

xxi. 6. " Then his master shall bring him to the 
judges/' in the Hebrew, to the gods. Onkelos, the 
Sjriac translator, and many among the moderns, 
agree that judges are here called gods : but the 
true rendering seems to be " he shall bring him to 
God, and shall bring him to the door," &c. ; that is, 
he shall present him at the temple, where the ser* 
vant shall solemnly and voluntarily renounce his 
liberty. The rite prescribed Exod. xxi. 1 — 6. is 
usually understood as if the master of a servant who 
refused his freedom, to which he had a right after 
six years servitude, brought him to his own house, 
and bored his ear * If Elohim, however, be taken 
in its natural and common acceptation to mean God, 
and no reason appears why it should not, this cere- 
mony, it should seem, was to be performed at the 
gates of the temple. This is the most literal inter- 
pretation of the passage, and every way consistent 
with the Levitical law r , which permitted nothing 
important to be transacted without the sanction of 
religion. — Deut. x. 17. " For the Lord your God is 
God of gods." This is a Hebraism denoting that 
the Lord, Jehovah, is, in a peculiar and eminent 
sense, God +. — 1 Sam. xxviii. 13. " And the woman 

* Ikenius, Antiq. Heb, P. III. cap. iii. § 18. Jennings, 
Jewish Antiq. lib. iii. cap. ix. Jahn, Archceologia Biblica, 
§ 171. Michaelis, Commentaries on the Laws of Moses, art. 
127. The observations of the last named author are very 
ingenious. 

+ " Deus Deorum, Hoc est, cui eximio et peculiari plane 
fensu, Dei et Domini nomina conveniunt." Le Clerc, in loc. 



chap, iv.] a Proof of his Divinity. 201 

said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the 
earth." The whole narration shews that the witch 
at Endor here calls Samuel by the name of Elohim, 
The whole story is remarkable, and attended with 
great difficulties ; so that the learned are divided, 
whether there was really any supernatural appear- 
ance, or it was entirely a piece of human fraud and 
imposture. On the latter supposition, the witch, as 
an accomplice in the imposition, might give this high 
appellation to the being she pretended to see, in 
order to astonish and appal the aged monarch ; if, 
on the former supposition, the appearance was 
superhuman, she might, in her terror and affright, 
give this name to the person she saw ascending out 
of the earth, as conscious that it was the work of 
God. At any rate, it was only a name given by 
the " woman that had a familiar spirit and it 
cannot be admitted as a proof that the title of God 
is given to men by any inspired writer *. — Psalm 
lxxxii. 1. " God standeth in the congregation of the 
mighty (in Hebrew, of God) ; he judgeth among 
the gods which Parkhurst, following Symmachus 
and Gousset, renders, " The Aleim stand in the 
congregation of God ; in the midst the Aleim will 

The superlative in Hebrew is often so expressed ; Robertson, 
Gram. Heb. p. 69. Glass, Phil. Sac. p. 40. 

* See the different opinions respecting this story in Farmer's 
Dissertation on Miracles, cap. iv. sect. ii. Calmet, Diss, sur 
VApparitioti de Samuel, Commentaire Literal, torn. ii. p. 331. 
Dr. Hales, New Analysis, vol. ii. p. 355. Dathe renders 
1 Sam. xxviii. 13. " video divinam speciem," &c. 



202 Divine Titles applied to Christ, [chap. iv. 

judge/' which the Hebrew, I think, will bear. 
But the principal difficulty lies in v. 6. " I have 
said. Ye are gods," where it is generally supposed 
that judges are so called. According to this view 
of it, there may be an ellipsis of caph before 
Elohim, as Gousset and Parkhurst suppose, and as 
warranted by the Targum, I have said, Ye are as 
God," or " Ye are in God's stead," viz. Ye judges 
are appointed by the Deity to govern the people, 
a»nd to execute justice in the earth. This is a most 
difficult psalm ; it is uncertain who is the speaker in 
it ; to whom it is addressed, what was the occasion 
of it, and what is its scope or design ; nor do the 
commentators supply any thing satisfactory. If I 
may presume to hazard an opinion, I should say, 
that the lxxxii d Psalm is directed against the false 
gods of the heathen. The Psalmist begins by 
shewing the supremacy of Jehovah, from which he 
draws some moral inferences in v. 2, 3, 4^ addressed 
to the congregation of God. Still, notwithstanding 
this, he says, " They know not, neither will they 
understand," &c. v. 5. Then the Psalmist per- 
sonates the heathen, and says, " I have said, Ye 
are gods ; and all of you are children of the Most 
High," i. e. the heathen continue to declare their 
idols and false gods to be true divinities. I rest my 
notion of this psalm upon v. 7, " But ye shall die 
like men ; and fall like one of the princes," which 
does not apply to judges and magistrates. It is 
idle to affirm of them that they " shall die like 
men ;" whereas it might, with propriety, be said of 



chap, iv.] a Proof of his Divinity. 203 

the heathen gods, that they should die like men, that 
is, should perish and come to nought; and fall like 
the princes who worshipped them. This well agrees 
with our Saviour's reference to it," as will imme- 
diately appear. I do not advance this interpretation 
as certain, though it appears more probable than 
the former; but I am at least justified in asserting, 
that whether magistrates or the heathen gods be the 
subject of this psalm, it does not supply an incon- 
trovertible example of the application of the title 
God to human beings # . 

From this examination of the principal texts 
alleged by the Unitarian, they appear evidently in- 
adequate to establish his position that the appella- 
tion " God" is given to men in the Scriptures. 
Admitting, even, that such an application in a few 
instances is discoverable in the Old Testament, it 
by no means follows that a similar application can 
be found in the New. This is the most important 
inquiry, since, if the Apostles and Evangelists never 
apply this title to men, the argument for our Lord's 
divinity, founded upon that title, will not be easily 
shaken, ©so? occurs in all above thirteen hundred 
times in the New Testament f ; and subtracting the 

* Some other passages have been appealed to, where the 
title God is supposed to be given to men, as Gen. iii. 5. Exod. 
xv. 11. xxii. 8, 9. 28. 1 Sam. ii. 25. Ps. viii. 5. Ixxxviii. 8. 
xcvii. 7. cxxxviii. 1. &c. but they may all admit a good inter- 
pretation, without such a supposition, as may be seen in the 
commentators, Parkhurst and Gousset, Lex. in a»n^«. L. 2. 

f In this calculation, I follow Stephens's Greek Concordance ; 
and, as I have examined every text where ©ior occurs, I believe 
it will be found correct. 



204 Divine Titles applied to Christ, [chap, iv, 

texts in which it is applied to Christ, it occurs in 
the singular number about twelve hundred and 
ninety times, and is never, in any instance, given 
to men. Again, in these twelve hundred and ninety 
times, it invariably denotes the one supreme God, 
except in the following texts, 2 Cor. iv. 4. where it 
means Satan ; Acts vii. 43. 2 Thess. ii. 4. where it 
is spoken of Pagan divinities ; and Acts xii. 22. 
xxviii. 6. Phil. iii. 19. in the two former of which it 
clearly denotes divinity as contradistinguished from 
man, and in the latter the belly is figuratively called 
the " god" of certain enemies to the cross of Christ, 
i. e. the object which they serve, and to which they 
are devoted. 

The word ®tog, in the plural number, occurs, if I 
am not mistaken, only nine times, viz. John x. 34, 35. 
Acts vii. 40. xiv. 11. xvii. 18. xix. 26. 1 Cor. viii. 5. 
twice, Gal. iv. 8. in none of which places is it given 
to men, excepting, perhaps, the two first. John 
x. 34. has always been cited by Unitarians as satis- 
factory evidence that the title " God" is given to 
men in the New Testament. My reasons for dis- 
senting from this opinion are, First, Our Lord's 
words may, possibly, be a quotation from Isaiah 
xlii. 17. where the expressions " ye are gods," 
denote idols or false deities ; and, in that case, the 
verse will not suit the Unitarian purpose. Secondly, 
Supposing them to be a quotation from Psalm 
lxxxii. 6. which, indeed, is most probable, it has 
been shewn above that this psalm may as properly 
be understood to relate to the false gods of the 



chap, iv.] a Proof of his Divinity. 205 

heathen,, as to judges and magistrates ; and if our 
Lord's words, k our, be rendered " against whom/' 
the reasoning becomes clear and consistent. Thus, 
if the false deities of the heathen are called "gods/' 
against whom the word of God came, how can you 
call me a blasphemer, whom the Father hath sanc- 
tified, and sent into the world * ? Thirdly, Our 
Saviour's argument, in which these words are cited, 
is in reply to a charge of blasphemy, which was so 
far from satisfying the Jews, that they c: sought 
again to take him." If his reasoning had been to 
this effect, as the Socinians pretend, namely, " The 
Scripture calls mere men gods, why then do you 
call me a blasphemer, whom the Father hath sanc- 
tified, &c." the Jews could have had no grounds for 
persevering in the charge. The answer must have 
been, on their own principles, perfectly satisfactory. 
But they did attempt to take him again after his 
reply, and therefore they must have understood his 
reply as again making himself God, (v. 33.) which 
could not have been the case had the phrase, " ye 
are gods," referred to human judges. But if it 
mean the gods of the heathen, our Lord argues 
from the less to the greater, and his reply by claim- 

* If the passage relate to judges, n-por ott will still be better 
rendered " against whom," than as in E. T. " unto whom for 
it is scarcely proper to say the word of God came to judges ; 
as it seems to imply that it came to them alone, which is not the 
fact. See Rosenmiiller, and Mackuight's Harmony, Atyas 
©soy, Bishop Pearce thinks, is put for Xoyo; Kfaws, the word or 
matter of judgment, for which there is, I think, no authority. 



206 Divine Titles applied to Christ, [chap. rv. 

ing a superiority to these, actually " made himself 
God," which was the blasphemy for which they 
attempted to stone him. — Whether these observa- 
tions be conclusive or not, I must still maintain that 
John x. 34, 35. does not present an undoubted ex- 
ample of men being called God. 

The result of the whole is, that it is highly pro- 
bable the title " God" is not given to men in the 
Old Testament ; and that it is certain the term 
©fo?, God, in the singular number is never applied 
to men in the New, and in the plural, if at all, only 
once. Let me, then, ask any unprejudiced person, 
whether it is credible that the Apostles and Evan- 
gelists would, in contradiction to their usual prac- 
tice, denominate our Lord by the appellation 44 God," 
if they had believed him to be only a man like them- 
selves ? Nay, I will go yet farther and maintain 
that they could not, consistently with their prin- 
ciples, give this title to a mere man. As one great 
object was to subvert the polytheism of the heathen 
world, they would have counteracted their own de- 
sign, had they given the name of the supreme Being 
to any of the human race. Their firm conviction in 
the divine Unity, and their earnestness to inculcate 
the belief of one God, w ould restrain them from the 
use of such language as might tend to countenance 
the notion of a plurality of gods. " Though there 
be," says St. Paul, " that are called gods, whether 
in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and 
lords many,) but to us there is but one God, of whom 
are all things, and we in him ; and one Lord Jesus 



chap, iv.] a Proof of his Divinity. 207 

Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." 
Is not this an assertion that Christians, although 
there are many called gods by the heathen, could 
call none by that title but the supreme Father of all 
and the Lord Jesus Christ, who, with the Holy 
Ghost, are one God, in nature co-equal, in glory 
co-eternal ? 

These observations are chiefly directed against 
the Socinian heresy, with which the orthodox of 
this age are principally called upon to contend. 
Arianism, it is true, might still allege that the ap- 
pellation " God" is given to angels and superior 
intelligences, and therefore only proves that our 
Saviour was a subordinate or inferior God, But 
the allegation is not supported by convincing rea- 
sons, as might easily be evinced, were it requisite, 
and of course the conclusion is unsound. It is 
unnecessary, however, to enter into a professed 
refutation; it is sufficient to reply both to the Arian 
and Unitarian oppugners of our Lord's essential 
deity, that, if it could be proved, though I am con- 
vinced it is impossible, that the view of the subject, 
above taken, was erroneous, that the term God is 
occasionally used in a lower sense, and that men are 
denominated God, not only in the Old Testament 
but in the New, the argument built upon this title 
would not be overthrown ; for we have discovered 
some instances where it is applied to Christ, under 
such peculiar circumstances as leave no room to 
doubt its implying his absolute divinity. 



208 Divine Titles applied to Ghrist, [chap. iv. 



JEHOVAH. 

XVIII. It has been shewn in chap. iii. sect. iii. 
that Jehovah is the incommunicable name of the 
one true God ; if Jesus Christ, then, is in his own 
proper person, called Jehovah, the consequence is 
irresistible that he is the same one God ; not the 
same Person with the Father, to whom also the 
name Jehovah is attributed, but the same Sub- 
stance, the same Being, in a word, the same Jeho- 
vah, thus revealed to be more Persons than one. 
As this reasoning is decisive, if the title Jehovah be 
actually given to Jesus it only remains to establish 
this point; and we shall have the satisfaction of 
finding that it rests upon the most convincing testi- 
mony. 

XIX. The grounds for believing that Christ 
was the Jehovah of the Old Testament, have been 
stated in the third section of the preceding chapter. 
It was there asserted, upon the strongest evidence, 
that our Lord appeared to the patriarchs and pro- 
phets ; that he was known to the Hebrews by the 
name of Jehovah, and that he was worshipped by 
them as their God : it cannot, therefore, be denied 
that the incommunicable name of the one true God 
is given to him in the Scriptures. Thus every 
branch of the argument is fully established, and 
further proof may be thought unnecessary ; never- 
theless, it may not be improper to review a few 
texts which bear upon this question. 



chap, iv.] a Proof of his Divinity. 209 

XX. The Jewish translators called the Seventy, 
generally render the Hebrew word Jehovah by 
Kvgiog, Lord; and the Apostles of Christ naturally 
adopted the phraseology of the version which was 
in common use among all the Hellenistic Jews. 
Prom this circumstance, the term Kvqios, must have 
conveyed to the minds of the writers of the New 
Testament, the same meaning as " Jehovah," when 
they quoted it from the Old Testament, and it could 
not possibly be understood by a Jew in any other 
sense. In referring several prophecies to our Sa- 
viour, which have Jehovah in the original Hebrew, 
though they made use of the term Kvgios, the term 
employed by the Seventy, they, no doubt, under- 
stood it as conveying the same sense with Jehovah, 
and thus virtually attributed that appellation to him. 
Hence, though the word Jehovah is not used in the 
New Testament, either of God or Christ, yet when 
passages from the Hebrew volume are expressly 
referred to either, and these passages contain the 
title Jehovah, this title, though not literally, is in 
reality ascribed to them. This, with respect to the 
Father, is undeniable; nor is the case at all different 
when the reference happens to be to the Son. A 
few examples will evince the correctness of this 
observation. 

XXI. Matt. iii. 3. " For this is he that was 
spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The 
voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye 
the way of the Lord, make his paths straight." 

P 



210 Divine Titles applied to Christ, [chap. nr. 

In the original text of Isaiah xl. 3. it is, " Prepare 
ye the way of Jehovah." The same prophecy is 
cited by the three other Evangelists * ; and thus 
we have an undoubted testimony to Christ's being 
the Jehovah mentioned in it. See ch. iii. sect, iii. 
p. 96. 

XXII. Matt. xxii. 44. " The Lord said unto 
my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make 
thine enemies thy footstool." So Mark xii. 36. 
Luke xx. 42. In these three texts we have a 
passage quoted from the cx th Psalm, from which 
it may be collected that Ku'/uof is equivalent to Jeho- 
vah, for by " the Lord/' answering to " Jehovah" 
in the psalm, God the Father is necessarily meant. 
This, it is granted, is not a direct proof of our 
Lord's being styled Jehovah, but it clearly shews 
that Ku^io? is substituted for " Jehovah" in a citation 
from the Old Testament, referred to the Father, 
which is a strong confirmation of its having the 
same sense when referred to Christ in similar 
citations. See chap. iii. sect. ix. 

XXIII. Luke i. 16, 17. " And many of the 
children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their 
God, and he shall go before him in the spirit and 
power of Elias," &c. It was observed, sect. iii. of 
this chapter, that him refers to the Lord their 

* Mark i. 3. Luke iii. 4. John i. 23. Bengel, Gnomon in 
Matt. iii. 3. 



chap, iv.] a Proof of his Divinity. 211 

God, and as Lord God in the Septuagint answers 
to Jehovah Elohim of the Hebrew Scriptures, St. 
Luke must have considered them as equivalent; 
and therefore Christ is virtually called Jehovah 
Elohim. 

XXIV. Luke ii. 11. " For unto you is born this 
day, in the city of David, a Saviour, which is Christ 
the Lord." But God declares by the mouth of 
the prophet Hosea, i. 7. " 1 will have mercy on the 
house of Judah, and will save them by the Lord 
(Jehovah) their God." Here God declares that he 
will save the house of J udah, by a person called 
Jehovah ; and as St. Luke says Clirist is that 
Saviour, Christ is, in fact, denominated Jehovah. 

XXV. John xii. 41. " These things, saith 
Esaias, when he saw his glory and spake of him." 
The glory which the Prophet saw was the glory of 
Jehovah of Hosts, who, St. John affirms was Jesus 
Christ. Our Saviour is, consequently, in this 
passage called Jehovah of Hosts. See chap. iii. 
sect. liii. 

XXVL John xix. 37. " And again, another 
scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they 
pierced." The scripture referred to is Zechariah 
xii. 10. " And they shall look upon me whom they 
have pierced," which words were spoken by Jeho- 
vah : and therefore Christ, who was pierced, is the 
Jehovah. Compare chap, iii, sect. xxi. 

p2 



212 Divine Titles applied to Christ, [chap. iv. 

XXVII. Rom. x. 13. " Whosoever shall call 
upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved/* which 
is a quotation from Joel ii. 32. " Whosoever shall 
call on the name of the Lord (Jehovah) shall be 
delivered." The context shews that this is applied 
to Jesus, who is consequently called Jehovah. 

XXVIII. Rom. xiv. 10, 11. " We shall all 
stand before the judgment-seat of Christ; for it 
is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee 
shall bow to me." The reference is to Isaiah 
xlv. 23. which has Jehovah; and being by the 
Apostle applied to Christ, it follows that Christ is 
called Jehovah. Compare chap. iii. sect. lv. 

XXIX. 1 Cor. i. 30. " But of him are ye in 
Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, 
and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemp- 
tion/' It is said in the prophet Isaiah xlv. 24, 25. 
" Surely, shall one say, In the Lord (Jehovah) have 
I righteousness and strength : — In the Lord (Jeho- 
vah) shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and 
shall glory." Jeremiah also says " a righteous 
Branch," whom the Lord would raise up, " shall 
be called the Lord (Jehovah) our righteousness," 
ch. xxiii. 6. Whence it is concluded that Jesus 
who of God is made unto us wisdom and righ- 
teousness, &c. is Jehovah. 

XXX. Heb. i. 10. " Thou, Lord, in the be- 
ginning hast laid the foundation of the earth, and 



chap. iv.] a Proof of his Divinity. 213 

the heavens are the works of thy hands." This is 
a quotation from Psalm cii. 24. throughout the 
whole of which the person who is addressed in it is 
styled Jehovah : and as the Apostle refers it to our 
Saviour, he must be the Jehovah who is the subject 
of that psalm. — These instances are sufficient to 
shew that the inspired writers of the New Testa- 
ment,, though they used the word Kvpiog, Lord, 
which they found in the Septuagint version, under- 
stood it, when they quoted the Old Testament, in 
the sense of Jehovah, and in that sense applied it 
to Jesus Christ. In such quotations, Kyrios, or 
Lord, answers to Jehovah in the Hebrew Scriptures, 
and, consequently, they must have considered these 
terms as equivalent. I limit this observation to 
quotations from the Old Testament, where it an- 
swers to the Hebrew Jehovah, because Kyrios, of 
itself, does not imply divinity. It is often applied 
to men, and in the received version is translated 
not only Lord, but Sir, and Master, and once 
Owner. It is likewise used by the Seventy in ren- 
dering Adon, Baal, JVagid, which appellations are 
frequently addressed to men *. Nevertheless, 
though Kyrios, Lord, cannot be proved to be equi- 
valent to Jehovah, except in quotations from the 
Old Testament, it is probable the Apostles, after 
the resurrection of Christ, designed, in addressing 
him by this title, to imply divinity. It is unneces- 

* See Biel, Thesaur. in Kvpio?. Campbell's Prel. Diss. vn. 
P. I. may be consulted with advantage. 



S14 Divine Titles applied to Christ, [chap. iv. 

sary to state the grounds of this opinion, as it is not 
intended to produce it in evidence that Jesus Christ 
is called Jehovah ; I shall therefore proceed to the 
consideration of a few texts from the Old Testa- 
ment. 

XXXI. Jer. xxiii. 5, 6. " Behold the days 
come, saith the Lord,, that I will raise unto David a 
righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and 
prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in 
the earth. In his days, Judah shall be saved, and 
Israel shall dwell safely ; and this is his name 
whereby he shall be called, The Lord our righ- 
teousness/' It is inconceivable how any Hebrew 
scholar can deny that this is a correct rendering of 
the original ; yet Dr. Blaney, a learned and eminent 
Hebraeician, in his version of Jeremiah, translates 
it, " And this is the name by which the Lord shall 
call him, our righteousness/' which he vindicates 
on two grounds, 1st. That the text will not properly 
admit of any other construction ; and, 2dly. That 
the Seventy have so translated it. Now the first of 
these is a mere assumption of the thing to be proved, 
and the second appears to be a mistake. 

The Septuagint version is, ,J And this is his 
name which the Lord shall call him, IQSEAEK # ." 
This last expression is probably an abridgment of 
IAXl, i. e. Jah or Jehovah, and IEAEK, the Hebrew 

* The LXX, is, k«l Terr© to Qvopa. uvrov t o nuh{&i\ avTost 



chap, iv.] a Proof of his Divinity. 215 

word for righteousness : the meaning of it may, 
therefore, be, " The righteous Lord," or rather, 
" The Lord of righteousness," corresponding to 
MEAXI-2EAEK, " King of righteousness," attributed 
to Christ, Psalm ex. 4. and Heb. vii. 2*. As little 
doubt can remain with respect to the accuracy of 
this interpretation, the meaning of the Seventy will 
be, " This is his name, which the Lord shall call 
him, the Lord of righteousness." The word Ku^oj, 
indeed, has nothing answering to it in the original, 
and they supplied it as the nominative to the verb, 
in which they are clearly wrong ; but still their 
version, so far from supporting Dr. Blaney, evi- 
dently corroborates the common translation f. Sym- 
machus renders, or rather paraphrases it, Kvpn 
xcLworov vipolq, Domine justifica nos, which, much as it 
recedes from the letter, shews that he took " Jeho- 
vah" in connection with " righteousness," which 
Blaney does not 

Dr. Blaney further observes, " in the parallel 

* Dr. Hales's Dissertations, p. 204. 

t The LXX. make Kvpo? the nominative to i&vip* ; whereas 
this verb is to be understood impersonally, " he shall be called ;" 
(see Simonis, Lex. Heb. and particularly Cocceius, Lex. Heb. 
SOp. v. ed. Schulz,) and all the ancient versions except the 
LXX. are to the same effect. But lsop» may, by a different 
pointing, be rendered " they (i. e. Judah and Israel) shall call 
or invoke;" and Dr. Hales renders it, " this is his name which 
they shall invoke, the Lord our righteousness" Diss. p. 200. 
and New Analysis, vol. ii. p. 481. 

$ See Bishop of St. David's Bible and Nothing hut the 
Bible, fyc. p, 97. et seq. His remarks are most excellent. 



210 Divine Titles applied to Christ, [chap. IV 

" passage, ch. xxxiii. 16. the expression is a little 
" varied, but the sense, according to a just and 
" literal translation, is precisely the same ; ' And 
" this is He whom Jehovah shall call, Our righ- 
" teousness/ " The authorized version of the 
place referred to by the learned Professor is, " and 
this is the name wherewith she shall be called, The 
Lord our righteousness." The most simple version 
is that proposed by Bishop Pearson : " Whereas, 
" in Jer. xxiii. 6. it is expressly said, this is the 
" name, in the xxxiii. 16. it is only, and this* 
" without any mention of a name ; and surely that 
" place cannot prove Jehovah to be the name of 
u Israel, which speaks not one word of the name of 
" Jerusalem: — the simplest interpretation of the 
41 words being, ' iste qui vacabit earn, he which 
" calleth Jerusalem is the Lord our righteousness/ 
" that is, Christ*." This is literal, and in this 
sense it becomes an additional testimony to the 
divinity of Jesus. May not the following interpre- 
tation, however, be admissible, i. e. 6i This is the 
name whereby he shall be called, the Lord our 
righteousness f i" Whichever of these may be 

* On the Creed, vol. ii. p. 170. Jer. xxxiii. 16. is, *w» mi 
upnv nm» nb *np>. 

f My reasons for thinking this translation preferable to that 
proposed by Bishop Pearson, are: 1st. An ellipsis of cdw, 
name, is not uncommon, (Walther, Ellipses Heb. p. 102.) and 
the parallel place, ch. xxiii. 6. renders such an ellipsis very 
probable. 2dly. The n in nb may be masculine in the Chaldee 
form, as Blaney observes, or if feminine, there is often an 



chap, iv.] a Proof of his Divinity, 217 

preferred, this., at least, may be laid down as certain, 
that a passage, which admits so easy an interpreta- 
tion, consistently with the position here defended, 
that the name " Jehovah" is given to Christ, cannot, 
with any reason, be pleaded against it. 

Having shewn that Dr. Blaney's translation of 
Jer. xxiii. 6. is indefensible, let us see what reasons 
may be advanced in support of the common ren- 
dering, " this is his name whereby he shall be 
called, the Lord our righteousness. " First, It is 
required by the context. It is the Lord who is 
speaking, and who says, " this is his name whereby 
he (the Branch) shall be called," &c. It would be 
absurd for Jehovah, who is speaking, to say, " I will 
raise unto David a righteous Branch — and this is 
he whom Jehovah shall call, our righteousness 
it should be " whom I will call, or they shall call 

enallage of gender in pronouns, as with rr, Gen. ii. 15. (Bux- 
torf, Thesaur. Gram. p. 414. Glass, Phil. Sac. p. 161. Noldius, 
Concord, p. 219.) it may therefore refer to Christ called the 
Branch, v. 15. which is the natural antecedent, for Judah and 
Jerusalem are mentioned only incidentally, the Branch being 
the principal subject. Besides, if it referred to Jerusalem, 
Judah could not be meant to be excluded, and it would most 
likely have been in the plural, jnV, not singular, nb. 3dly. The 
Vulgate is " vocabunt eum ;" the other ancient versions are 
dubious, but probably they agree with the Vulgate. 4thly. As 
chap, xxiii. 6. clearly refers to the Messiah, and calls his name 
" Jehovah our righteousness," this, being parallel to it, was 
most likely intended to express the same, and therefore nb Nip» 
is equivalent with itnp* in the former. These reasons seem to 
warrant the translation given in the text. 



218 Divine Titles applied to Christ, [chap. nr. 

therefore " Jehovah" and " righteousness" must be 
connected together. Secondly, The Messiah may 
very properly be called " our righteousness" by 
men, but not by the Almighty. Thirdly, Though 
eminent men in Scripture are said to give names to 
places and persons, and God is stated to direct the 
imposition of names : yet it is no where said, " this 
is the name by which the Lord shall call him %" 
Fourthly, The authorized version is confirmed by 
the ancient versions. The Vulgate and Syriac 
clearly agree with it, to which the Septuagint, as 
we have seen, may be added, and the Arabic 
coincides with the LXX. The Targum of Jonathan 
is paraphrastic, but probably means the same thing, 
viz. " This is his name by which they shall call 
him, Righteousnesses shall be to us from before the 
Lord in his days f ." The only Hexaplarian version 
remaining of this passage, that of Symmachus, does 
not contradict E. T. for it connects " Jehovah" and 
" righteousness." Fifthly, It was the constant in- 
terpretation of the Jews, who attribute the name 
Jehovah to the Messiah, from this particular text, 
for proof of which I refer to the authors cited 

* Bishop Burgess, from whom the second and third reasons 
are taken, adds another, viz. " It seems contrary to all pro- 
" priety to separate the name given from him, so denominated, 
" by the intervention of any other name, as would be the case 
" if mn» belonged to i*np» and not to upiy." Bible, fyc* 
p. 100. I have some doubts about this. 

t payn* literally " shall be made," " shall be effected or 
wrought out," " fient." 



chap, iv.] a Proof of his Divinity. 219 

below*. Sixthly, It is sanctioned by parallel texts: 
" Surely shall one say, In Jehovah have I righ- 
teousness and strength. — In Jehovah shall all the 
seed of Israel be justified and shall glory/' (Isa. 
xlv. 24, 25.) Jesus " is the end of the law for 
righteousness to every one that believed!/* (Rom. 
x. 4.) and " He is made of God unto us wisdom, 
and righteousness, and sanctification and redemp- 
tion/' (1 Cor. i. 30.) 

When all these reasons in favour of the received 
translation are duly considered, it must be pro- 
nounced correct and accurate ; and Jer. xxiii. 6. 
therefore, may be appealed to as constituting an 
unanswerable argument for the divinity of Jesus. 

XXXII. Mai. iii. 1. " Behold I will send my 
messenger, and he shall prepare the way before 
me : and the Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly 
come to his temple, even the messenger of the 
covenant, whom ye delight in : behold he shall 
come, saith the Lord (Jehovah; of Hosts." We 
know from Matt. xi. 10. Mark i. 2. Luke i. 76. 
that the Messenger mentioned by the Prophet was 
John the Baptist, who prepared the way before 
Christ ; but " he (the Baptist) shall prepare the 
way before me, saith Jehovah of Hosts/' there- 
fore Christ is Jehovah of Hosts. Compare ch. iii. 
sect. iii. p. 101. and sect. xi. p. 130. 

* De Rossi, not. Allix, Judgment, fyc. p. 407. Pearson, On 
the Creed, vol. ii. p. 169. 



220 Divine Titles applied to Christ, [chap. rtr 

It is observable that the citation of this verse in 
Matthew differs from the Hebrew, i. e. " before 
thy face/' and " before thee;" upon which the very 
learned Dr. Pococke thus argues. " Though it be 
" true what some here observe, that such works of 
" the Trinity as are external and common to all 
u the persons, and not proper to one, may indif- 
" ferently be attributed to either; yet the plainest 
" way of expounding these words here seems to be, 
" to look upon them, as spoken here (as well as in 
" the Evangelists) by God the Father concerning 
" Christ ; here of him, there expressly to him. 
" And then the saying here, my messenger before 
" me ; and there thy way before thee, making the 
" same way to be called God's way here, and 
" Christ's there, affords us an evident proof, that 
44 Christ is one God with the Father, and that in 
" Christ God came, and was manifest in the flesh *, " 

There are other texts in the Old Testament pro- 
phetical of the Messiah, where the appellation 
" Jehovah" is expressly or by implication ascribed 
to him, but it is unnecessary to cite them, as the 
above are conclusive evidence that Christ is deno- 
minated by that title in the Scriptures. Consider 
what a powerful argument this affords to his divinity. 
Jehovah is the peculiar and incommunicable name 
of the one true God ; it has no plural; and neither 
is nor can be applied to any created being, as it 

* Commentary in Mai. iii. 1. vol. i. p. 149. ed. Twells. See 
also Hammond on Matt, xi, 10. 



chap. iv. J a Proof of his Divinity* 221 

imports eternal and necessary existence. And since 
it is given to our Lord, we cannot but conclude that 
he is really and essentially God. 

KING OF ISRAEL. 
XXXIII. God was the King of Israel in an 
especial manner under the theocracy, and he is fre- 
quently styled so in the Old Testament. " The 
Holy One of Israel is our King," says the Psalmist, 
(Ixxxix. 19.) " Mine eyes have seen the King, the 
Lord of Hosts," says Isaiah, (vi. 5.); and " I am 
the Creator of Israel, your King/' (Isa. xliii. 15.) ; 
" As I live, saith the King, whose name is the Lord 
of Hosts," (Jer. xlvi. 18.); and many other places 
to the like effect. Our Lord is often called by the 
title " King of Israel," as will be evident from the 
references in the margin * ; and the plenitude of 
Godhead intimated in it, will appear from a com- 
parison of two similar passages, wherein Nathaniel 
and Thomas expressed their conviction of our 
Saviour's being all that he said he was ; Thomas 
cried out, " My Lord and my God," and Natha- 
niel, " Rabbi, thou art the Son of God, thou art 
the King of Israel," (John xx. 28. i. 49.) Both 
these confessions were doubtless intended to signify 
the divine nature and character of Jesus, and there- 
fore the appellation " King of Israel," is expressive 
of deity. The chief priests, the scribes, and the 

* John i. 49. xii. 13. xviii. 37. xix. 12. &c. Acts xvii. 7. 
Matt, xxvii. 42. Mark xv. 32. This title is well illustrated by 
Whittaker, Origin of Arianism, p. 168. 



222 Divine Titles applied to Christ, [chap. iv. 

elders, acknowledged divinity in this title, when 
they said, " He saved others, himself he cannot 
save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now 
come down from the cross, and we will believe 
him. He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, 
if he will have him : for he said, I am the Son of 
God," (Matt. xxviL 42, 43.) It therefore seems 
clear that Christ's being called the King of Israel 
imported his divinity. 

ALMIGHTY. 

XXXIV. Revel, i. 8. " I am Alpha and Omega, 
the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, 
which is, and which was, and which is to come, the 
Almighty." Some doubt, it is acknowledged, may 
exist whether this is spoken by the Father, or by 
the Son; though the latter is far more probable, 
because, First, The verse immediately preceding 
relates to Christ, who is to " come with clouds; 
and every eye shall see him, and they also which 
pierced him." Secondly, The title Alpha and 
Omega, in the same verse, is applied to Christ more 
than once in the book of Revelations. (See sect, 
xl.) Thirdly, The ancients, both before and after 
the council of Nice, understood this of God the 
Son *. 

It is objected, that Griesbach's text is, " I am 

* Dr. Waterland, Sixth Sermon at Lady Mayer's. The 
Fathers might refer it to the Son, although they had read 
Griesbach's text, kv^k 5 ©io?, as some of them did. 



chap, iv.] a Proof of his Divinity. 223 

Alpha and Omega, saith the Lord God * ;" but, 
allowing this to be the true reading, it does not 
necessarily limit it to the Father, since Jesus Christ 
is elsewhere styled ©so?, God. It is likewise ob- 
jected, that the title the Almighty (jroiVTOK^rcao) 
though it occurs seven times, in other places, is 
always applied to the Father f. This, I think, 
must be granted, with perhaps one exception, viz. 
Revel, xv. 3. and it is an observation of considerable 
importance ; yet the reasons for its application to 
Christ in this passage, greatly outbalance it. " But 
" if, after all/' as Dr. Doddridge observes, " the 
" words should be understood as spoken by the 
" Father, our Lord's applying so many of these 
" titles afterwards to himself, plainly proves his 
" partaking with the Father in the glory peculiar 
" to the Divine Nature, and incommunicable to any 
" creature/' 

XXXV. Revel, xv. 3. " And they sing the song 
of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the 
Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous are thy works, 

* Asysi xvpos o Beo? 5 Jf, &c. Mr. Wardlaw proposes to 
translate it, " I am A and 12, saith the Lord, the God who is, 
and who was, and who is to come." Unitarianism incapable 
of Vindication, p. 36. This coincides in sense with the version 
in the text, as, according to both, the same person is styled 
" Lord" and " God :" yet the rendering " saith the Lord God," 
agrees better with the phrase in some other passages of this 
book ; viz. ch. iv. 8. xi. 17. xvi. 7. xv. 3. xix. 6. xxi. 22. xxii. 5. 

t Viz. 2 Cor. vi. 18. Rev. iv. 8. xi. 17. xv. 3. xvi. 14. xix. 6. 
xxi. 22. 



224 Divine Titles applied to Christ, [chap. iv. 

Lord God Almighty." It is ambiguous whether 
" the song of the Lamb/' mean the song which he 
approves, or the song of which he is the subject* : 
if the latter the phrase " Lord God Almighty" will 
refer to our Saviour, here styled the Lamb. 

XXXVI. It has been proved before that the 
divine Person who appeared to the Patriarchs and 
Prophets was our blessed Lord, (chap. iii. sect, iii.) 
To this Person the title of " Almighty" is be- 
stowed, as is plain by consulting Gen. xvii. 1. xxxv. 
11. xlviii. 3. Exod. vi. 3. to which, for the sake of 
brevity, I only refer ; hence, the appellation " Al- 
mighty" is given to our Lord in the Old Testa- 
ment f . The Hebrew word made use of in these 
passages is Shaddai, respecting the etymology of 
which philologists have entertained different opi- 
nions I ; but the idea of Almightiness enters into 
most, if not all of them ; it is rendered u Almighty" 
frequently by the ancient translators, and is most 
evidently a title of the eternal God. The name 
Shaddai, then, being given to the appearing angel, 
who was our Lord, proves that our Lord is called 
Almighty, who must consequently be God. 

* rh wbrjv rov ugviov, i. e. Mosis canticum applicatum Christo 
et rebus Christi." Ro^enniiiller. 

+ See Serie's Horce Solitaries, vol. i. p. 41. 

% See Ikenius, Dissert. Philol. Theol. I. Michaelis, SuppL 
ad Lex. Heb. No. 24L8. Cocceius, Lex. in voc. ed. Schulz, 



chap, iv.] a Proof of his Divinity. 



225 



LORD OF GLORY. 

XXXVIL 1 Cor. ii. 8. " — had they known it, 
they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory." 
If we ask with the Psalmist, " Who is this King of 
Glory ?" the inspired bard will tell us, it is " the 
Lord, strong and mighty, mighty in battle/' " the 
Lord of Hosts, he is the King of Glory," (Psalm 
xxiv. 8. 10.) Stephen also says, " The God of 
Glory appeared unto our father Abraham/' (Acts 
vii. 2.) Now, the divine Person who appeared to 
the Patriarchs was Christ, consequently, he is the 
God of Glory, called by St. Paul, the Lord of 
Glory *. 

KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS. 

XXXVIIL Revel, xvii. 14. « These shall make 
war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome 
them; for he is Lord of lords and King of kings." 
And again, Revel, xix. 13. 16. " And his name is 
called the Word of God — And he had on his ves- 
ture, and on his thigh, a name written, King of 
kings and Lord of lords." This title is indubita- 
bly given to Christ, yet St. Paul, by the same 

* See Macknight on 1 Cor. ii. 0. and Suicer, Thesaur. 
torn. ii. p. 195. There is another text which, according to the 
common version, belongs to this section, " Have not the faith 
of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of 
persons," James ii. 1. But Whitby, Macknight, &c. reader it, 
ei the faith of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ which seems 
a preferable rendering. 

Q 



226 Divine Titles applied to Christ, [chap. iv. 

designation, describes God the Father, to be " the 
blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and 
Lord of lords," (1 Tim. vi. 15.) Christ is, there- 
fore, identified with God, by the ascription of a 
common title ; a title in itself significative of su- 
preme and infinite power and dominion. 

It is said, however, that this title only means a 
great king, a mighty lord ; it being a common form 
of the superlative degree ; Ezek. xxvi. 7. Ezra 
vii. 12.* It is true, the expression is a common 
form of the superlative degree ; but " Lord of 
lords," is a phrase only occurring Deut. x. 17. 
besides the texts above quoted, and is never given 
to men : besides, the strength of the argument lies 
in the circumstance, that the same title is given to 
Christ, by which St. Paul distinguishes God the 
Father, the " only Potentate. " 

THE FIRST AND THE LAST. 

XXXIX. Revel, i. 17, 18. « Fear not; 1 am 
the First and the Last : I am he that liveth and 
was dead ; and behold, I am alive for evermore, 
Amen." Our Saviour is here indisputably called 
" the First and the Last and according to the 
standard version, the same title is given him in 
v. 11. of the same chapter; but Griesbach omits 
the clause, " I am Alpha and Omega, the First and 
the Last," in which, I think, he is justified by his 
authorities. 



* Belsham's Calm Inquiry, p. 176. 



chap, iv.] a Proof of his Divinity. 227 

Revel, ii. 8. " These thing's, saith the First and 
the Last, which was dead, and is alive." The same 
title our Lord assumes clearly and absolutely in this 
verse. 

Revel, xxii. 13. " I am Alpha and Omega, the 
Beginning and the End, the First and the Last." 
In Griesbach/s text, the two latter clauses are trans- 
posed, and the verb slpi is omitted, neither of which 
alterations make any difference in the sense ; and 
the context, particularly v. 16. and v. 12. compared 
with v. 20. shews that Jesus is the speaker, who 
thus takes to himself the title of " the First and the 
Last." 

ALPHA AND OMEGA. 

XL. The text last quoted, Revel, xxii. 13. " I 
am Alpha and Omega," is a full proof that Jesus 
assumes this title. We also find the same title, 
ch. i. 8. 11. but in v. 11. Griesbach omits the 
words, " I am Alpha and Omega/' and the former 
verse may possibly be referred to the Father, 
though it is far more probable that it is spoken by 
the Son. (See sect, xxxiv. of this chapter.) 

In Revel, xxi. 5, 6. we read, " And he that sat 
upon the throne, said — I am Alpha and Omega, the 
Beginning and the End," where Jesus may be the 
speaker. " But/' as Dr. Doddridge observes, " as 
" the Lamb, and He that sat upon the throne, 
" have been mentioned, as distinct, through the 
" whole book, and as the Lamb is mentioned here 
" as the Spouse of the Church, I am ready to 



228 Divine Titles applied to Christ, [chap. iv. 

" understand the Father as the Person here spoken 
<e of. But I will not absolutely insist upon this,, 
" because, in ch. xx. II, 12. it seems to be Christ 
" who is represented as sitting upon the throne; 
" since we know it is he who is to appear as uni- 
" versal Judge, under which character, the Person 
" who sat upon the throne is here spoken of *." 

BEGINNING AND END. 

XLI. Revel, xxii. 13. proves indisputably that 
this is a Scriptural title of our Saviour. It occurs 
also in the received translation, Revel, i. 8. but 
Griesbach omits the words " the Beginning and the 
End;" not to mention the doubt respecting its 
application to the Son. 

XLII. The three preceding titles, we may con- 
clude, without hesitation, are expressly ascribed to 
our Lord by the apostle St. John ; and they are in 
themselves expressive of absolute divinity. He who 
is the First and the Last, Alpha and Omega, the 
Beginning and End, must be eternal and uncreated. 
They are attributed to Christ absolutely and uni- 
versally, without any kind of restriction or limitation, 
without any assignation of any particular, in respect 
of which he is the First and the Last, the Begin- 
ning and End. They are given to him in the same 

* Family Expositor, in loc. Archdeacon Woodhouse con- 
siders Christ as the speaker ; (On the Apocalypse, in loc.) and 
this opinion I take to be well founded ; but let the reader 
judge. 



chap, iv.] a Proof of his Divinity. 229 

extent and eminence of expression in which they 
are or can be attributed to the Father. 

The Father is characterized by the appellation of 
the First and the Last. e: I, the Lord (J ehovah) 
the First, and with the Last, I am He/' (Isa. xli. 4.) ; 
" I am the First and I am the Last ; and besides 
me there is no God/' (Isa. xliv. 6. compare Isa. xliii. 
10. xlviii. 12.) Yet Christ has assumed to himself 
this title, by which the supreme God is described, 
and which expresses eternity and omnipotence; he 
must, therefore, by this assumption of it, be under- 
stood to assert his own supreme Deity. " Where- 
" fore, seeing Christ hath so immediately, and with 
" so great solemnity and frequency, taken the same 
" style upon him, by which the Father did express 
" his Godhead ; it followeth, that he hath declared 
" himself to be the supreme, almighty, and eternal 
" God*." 

* Bishop Pearson, On the Creed, vol. i. p. 204. 



CHAPTER V. 



DIVINE ATTRIBUTES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST, A PROOF OF 
HIS DIVINITY. 



I. Should it appear that the Divine Attributes 
are ascribed to our Lord in the sacred Writings, 
this will amount to an incontestable proof of his 
true and essential Deity. If he is described as 
eternal, immutable, omniscient, and omnipresent, 
he must be God ; since these qualities can only 
reside in the supreme Godhead. The object, then, 
of the present inquiry is to ascertain whether this 
is the fact ; for, that being established, the inference 
is unavoidable. 

The divine attributes of our Lord may, indeed, 
be inferred from what has been already advanced ; 
since, if the Son be God, in the strict and proper 
sense, as has been proved in the second and third 
chapters, he is, of course, possessed of all the per- 
fections of Deity. Although this argument is con- 
clusive, it must, at present, be waived, as it is the 
design of this chapter, not to prove that he possesses 
the divine attributes because he is God, but to 



chap, v.] Divine Attributes ascribed, %c. 231 

evince that he is God because the divine attributes 
are ascribed to him. 

Again, if it can be shewn that the inspired 
Writers attribute any one of the divine attributes 
to our Saviour, it is a necessary consequence, that 
he must be possessed of every other. The perfec- 
tions of Deity are too intimately united to allow the 
supposition of any of them existing separately ; 
and therefore the Being who possesses one must be 
possessed of all *. But this argument, though a very 
strong one, need not here be insisted upon ; for the 
proof of Christ's divinity, from the ascription of 
divine attributes will be made out most convincingly 
by shewing separately, as well as generally, that 
each of the divine attributes are ascribed to him. 

GENERAL ASCRIPTION OF DIVINE ATTRIBUTES. 

II. John v. 17 — 20. " Jesus answered them, 
My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. There- 
fore the Jews sought the more to kill hinr, because 
he not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also 
that God was his Father, making himself equal with 
God. Then answered Jesus, and said unto them, 
Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do 
nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father 
do : for what things soever he doeth, these also 
doeth the Son likewise; for the Father loveth the 

* " Attributa divina arctissimo copulari vinculo, sic, ut 
nullum separatim concipi queat, adeoque qui uno pollet, om- 
nibus ornetur." Doederlein, Inst, Tkeol. Christ. § 10G. obs. 1, 



232 Divine Attributes ascribed to Christ, [chap, v. 

Son, and sbeweth him all things that himself doeth : 
and he will shew him greater works than these, that 
ye may marvel/' That Jesus, in the first sentence 
of this quotation, assumes equality with the Father, 
was proved upon a former occasion, (chap. iii. sect, 
xvii.) When the Jews sought to kill him, because 
he thus " made himself equal with God/' what was 
his reply ? Does he deny the charge, as an honest 
man should have done, had it been unfounded ? 
Or does he express that indignation at the charge of 
assuming an equality with God, which a virtuous 
man would have done ? No. Instead of denying 
the accusation, he goes on to confirm it by de- 
claring, that " whatsoever things the Father doeth 7 
these also doeth the Son likewise ;" that " as the 
Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them ; 
even so the Son quickeneth whom He will," (v. 2L); 
that the Father " hath committed all judgment to 
the Son," (v. 22.) ; that " all men should honour the 
Son, even as they honour the Father," (v. 23.); 
that " the hour is coming, and now is, when the 
dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God," 
(v. 25.) ; that " as the Father hath life in himself, 
so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself," 
(v. 26.) These declarations, so far from denying, 
absolutely confirm the accusation of " making him- 
self equal with God." This, in my judgment, is a 
strong proof of his divinity. Had he been a mere 
man, he would have instantly and unequivocally 
denied the charge, and not have said " what things 
soever the Father doeth, these also doeth the Son 



chap, v.] a Proof of his Divinity. 233 

likewise ;" which amounts to an assumption of the 
divine attributes, of which no man, of any virtuous 
sentiments, could be guilty. 

Our Saviour, it is true, declares, " The Son can 
do nothing of himself/' which may be thought to 
imply inferiority to the Father. It is a part of the 
orthodox creed, be it remembered, to believe that 
the Son, though equal to the Father, as touching 
his Godhead, is inferior to the Father, as touching 
his Manhood. In his mediatorial character, he was 
sent into the world, and executed the will of God ; 
this was a part of his voluntary humiliation and 
obedience unto death, upon which the mystery of 
redemption is founded. The orthodox also believe 
a certain pre-eminence in the Father as the fountain 
of Deity, and a certain subordination of the Son, 
in his divine nature, as begotten of the Father. 
They readily acknowledge as literal Scripture, those 
texts in which the Son's inferiority, as to his hu- 
manity, and his subordination, as the second Person, 
are declared. Our Lord Jesus Christ was perfect 
Man as well as perfect God ; and this, we believe, 
alone can reconcile those passages wherein his 
obedience, humiliation, and sufferings are pour- 
trayed, with those in which the divine characters 
are ascribed to him, and his exalted nature is de- 
scribed. Deny either his deity or his humanity, 
and the Bible becomes a tissue of irreconcileable as- 
sertions, and inexplicable contradictions : " whereas, 
" by admitting both the divinity and the incarnation 
" of the Redeemer, we find the all-pervading and 



234 Divine Attributes ascribed to Christ, [chap. v. 

" connecting principle, which solves the difficulties, 
" and reconciles the apparent contradictions of 
" Scripture, and gives to the entire scheme of 
" revelation, harmony and consistence V 

The expressions, then, " the Son can do nothing 
of himself," may be interpreted of the Son's sub- 
ordination to the Father, in perfect consistency 
with the orthodox belief ; he can do nothing of 
himself, separate from, and independent of the 
Father, who is the head and fountain of Deity: 
nevertheless, they most probably mean that there 
is a perfect union of will and operation between the 
Father and the Son, so that " what things soever 
the Father doeth, these also doeth the Son like- 
wise." This is confirmed by the following verse, 
" JPor the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him 
all things that himself doeth," which implies such 
a union, familiarity, and accordance, that their acts 
are reciprocal, as their will is one. Nay, it is 
confirmed by the very declaration itself, sc the Son 
can do nothing of himself, but what (lolu pyj, except 
what) he seeth the Father do/' which implies that 
he can do every thing which he seeth the Father 
do: and if he can do all the works which the 
Father does, he must possess an equality of power 
and wisdom. When, therefore, he says, he " can 
do nothing of himself," he must mean, that there is 
such a perfect union of will and operation in him 
and the Father, that they invariably act in concert. 

* Dean Graves, Scriptural Proofs of the Trinity, p. 37. 



chap. v.J a Proof of his Divinity. 235 

Now, an equality of power and wisdom, and a 
union of will and operation, clearly prove an iden- 
tity of nature. 

The reason given for our Lord's assertion, that 
" what things soever the Father doeth, these also 
doeth the Son likewise/' corroborates the same con- 
clusion ; " for the Father loveth the Son, and 
sheweth him all things that himself doeth ;" that is, 
the Son has perfect knowledge of all the works of 
God, and the power of performing the same, by 
communication from the Father. From this it fol- 
lows that the Son participates in the same divine 
nature and perfections. He could not comprehend 
all the works and ways of the Father, much less 
co-operate in them, unless he himself were infinite 
in wisdom and power, and fully possessed of the 
attributes and immutable nature of God *. 

* See the excellent reasoning of Bisterfeld on this passage, 
De Uno Deo, lib. i. sect. ii. cap. iii. oi> Mvktcci does not always 
denote impossibility, but sometimes moral impropriety or un- 
fitness, Matt. ix. 15. xxvi. 42. Luke xi. 7. xiv. 20. xvi. 2. &c. 
" Formula ov Svvotroti etiam aliis in locis potentiam moralem 
designat, ut 1 Job. iii. 9. Job. xii. 39. Alii, ut Heinsius, to 
(tivocTai redundare putarunt, sed frigida sic et orationi contextae 
minus conveniens sententia procedit. Alii ov Svvcctui expri- 
mendum statuerunt non vult, v. Lampius ad h. 1." Kuinoel in 
loc. See Grotius, Liglitfoot, and Rosenmiiller. The interpre- 
tation of those foreign critics, who would give to the verb 
ttomv in v. 19. the sense of teaching, and to the sense of 
doctrines, viz. whatever doctrines the Father teacheth, these 
teacheth the Son likewise, does not deserve the serious refu- 
tation it has received from Kuinoel and Storr, Opuscula y 



236 Divine Attributes ascribed to Christ, [chap. v. 

III. John v. 26. " For as the Father hath life 
in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life 
in himself." The word " life" here is variously 
expounded by the commentators, some understand- 
ing by it the power of giving* life to others * ; some, 
happiness and felicity, as it occasionally signifies f ; 
others, more properly, I think, explain it by a prin- 
ciple of vitality, an actual being or existence, to, 
esse J. Be this as it may, whatever the phrase " to 
have life in himself" signifies in the one case, it 
must signify the same in the other. The Son, 
then, must have this " life in himself" in the same 
way and the same degree as the Father has it in 
himself In the Father, however, it necessarily 
includes perfection and infinitude ; and as the Son 
has this " life" in the same infinite and perfect 
degree, he must be in nature co-equal and consub- 
stantial, because perfection and infinitude can only 
belong to Deity. It is, indeed, said that the Father 
hath given, Uuxe, to the Son " to have life in him- 
self/' which certainly means that he has this life by 
communication from the Father; and though it 

torn. iii. p. 141. Some of the German school are scarcely 
outdone in torturing the sacred text by the disciples of British 
Unitarianism. On the whole of the passage under consi- 
deration, Tittman, Meletem. Sac, p. 198. et seq. deserves to 
be consulted. See also Dresigius, de Verbis Mediis N. T. 
p. 550, 

* Whitby, Pearce, Schleusner, Macknight, &c. 
+ Rosenmuller, &c. 

I Lightfoot, Doddridge, &e. See Vitringa, de Generatione 
Filii, p. 23. and Epilog, p. 14. 



chap, v.] a Proof of his Divinity. 237 

proves the generation of the Son, it by no means 
proves that the Son does not possess this life equally 
with the Father. As the expressions are perfectly 
similar, the Son must be supposed to have " life in 
himself/' just as the Father has " life in himself;" 
and whatever signification may be annexed to the 
word " life/' the phrase equally applied to both, 
implies identity of nature. 

IV. John xvi. 15. " All things that the 
Father hath are mine." Here the declaration is 
general and without limitation, that the Son pos- 
sesses all things that the Father hath. He must 
hen be in all respects equal to the Father, except- 
ing only what the text intimates in the name of 
Father, that he is not another Father, but Son of 
the Father. " If God the Son hath all things that 
" the Father hath/* says Dr. Waterland, " then 
" hath he all the attributes and perfections belong- 
" ing to the Father ; the same power, rights, and 
V privileges ; the same honour and glory ; and, in 
u a word, the same Nature, Substance, and God- 
" head # ." 

Should the expression ce all things/' be explained 
of doctrines, as several commentators do, though 
there does not appear any just grounds for this 
limitation, the divinity of Jesus may still be inferred. 
ff All things/' if the phrase refers to doctrines, must 
mean all the doctrines, all the counsels and designs 



* Sermon VI, at Lady 31 oyer's, p. 195. 



238 Divine Attributes ascribed to Christ, [chap. v. 

of the Father ; and the Son, by claiming them all 
as his, claims an equality of wisdom, which amounts 
to an assumption of omniscience. In fact, how- 
ever the expression may be limited, our Lord's 
assertion that ee all things that the Father hath are 
mine/' implies a co-equality of possession in regard 
to these " all things," which leads directly to the 
inference of a co-equality of attributes and essence. 
It would be impiety in any man, however favoured 
by divine communications, to declare that " all 
things, whether doctrines, &c. that the Father hath 
are mine," are possessed by me ; and as the holy 
Jesus makes this declaration without any restric- 
tion whatever, we conclude that, in the most exten- 
sive sense, " all things that the Father hath are 
his," their perfections common, and their nature 
equal # . 

V. John xvii. 10. " And all mine are thine, 
and thine are mine." Here again the expression is 
without any limitation, wuvt*, all things : but it is 
said, the neuter is put for the masculine, and the 
sense therefore is, those who are my followers and 
disciples are thine. Such an enallage is certainly 
not unexampled ; but the context opposes the notion 
of its existence in the passage before us. The 

* Joh. xvi. 15. " Dicere voluit won : doctrina mea ^est 
doctrina Patris, sed aliquid amplius, nempe hoc : quae Pater 
habet, habeo ego, quae vult, volo ego, quae facit, facio ego ad 
salutem generis humani; nihil est inter nos non commune, 
&c." Tittmaiv Me/eta. Sac. in Joh. p. 581. 



chap, v.] a Proof of his Divinity. 239 

words are part of our Lord's address to the Father, 
in which he makes mention of " the men which 
the Father had given him out of the world/' (v. 6.) 
" I pray for them ; says he, I pray not for the 
world, but for them which thou hast given me; 
for they are thine." Then follow the words in 
question, cc And all mine are thine, and thine are 
mine as if he had said, cc I pray for my disciples, 
for they are thine, and not only they are thine, but 
all other things which belong to me are thine, and 
all thine are mine ; we equally participate in the 
same nature and perfections/' What greatly con- 
firms this is, that Jesus, both in the preceding and 
following part of his address, speaks of his faithful 
followers in the masculine, but in the passage under 
consideration he uses the neuter, which he scarcely 
would have done had it related to the persons men- 
tioned before and after*. 

VI. Revel, iii. 7. " These things saith he that 
is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of 
David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth ; and 
shutteth, and no man openeth." These characters 
can belong to no other than our Lord. As power 

* An exception to the universality of this observation may 
perhaps be found in v. 2. where noLv neuter, is by many sup- 
posed to be put for Travre? : but it may be put for k«t« ttoLv, 
and at any rate the neuter iroiv seems to have a peculiar con- 
struction, like the Hebrew Vd. (See Schleusner in voc. 1.) Had 
Christ meant persons in v. 10. it is likely he would not have 
used nana, neuter, but warn?, masculine, as he does v. 21. 



240 Divine Attributes ascribed to Christ, [chap. v. 

and authority are represented in Scripture under 
the image of a key, " he that hath the key of 
David/' must mean, he that hath authority over the 
church, represented by " David," an elliptical ex- 
pression for " the house of David," and signifying 
the same as " the keys of the kingdom of heaven," 
Matt. xvi. 19. The sense, then, is, Christ has 
power to admit into, or exclude from, the kingdom 
of heaven whomsoever he pleases ; an office which 
he could not execute according to the rules of eter- 
nal justice, unless he were infinite in wisdom, 
power, and goodness *. The same conclusion may 
be drawn by a similar argumentation, from Rev. 
i. 18. where our Lord declares he has " the keys 
of hell and of death/' The note of Archdeacon 
Woodhouse deserves to be transcribed. " To bear 
" the keys, imports the same, both in scriptural 
" and pagan antiquity, as to bear power and office. 
" In chap. iii. 7. our Lord is represented to have 
" ' the keys of David;' to bear that power and 
" office which were attributed to him by the prophet 
" Isaiah, in the very same words, Isa. xxii. 22. It 
" is by these keys that he possesses the sole and 
" exclusive right of opening and shutting to all 
" eternity/' 

VII. Revel, iii. 21. " To him that overcometh 

* Sensus est : " qui ad regnum divinum, quosquos voluerit, 
admittere potest." Schleusner in xtek, whom by al! means 
consult. Instead of the received reading, xteft*, Griesbach 
reads k\m ; both forms are common in Greek authors. 



chap, v.] a Proof of his Divinity. 241 

will I grant (JwVw auVw Jta$(<r»i, literally, " I will 
give to him,") to sit with me in my throne, even as 
I also overcame, and am set clown with my Father 
in his throne." In these words, Jesus claims the 
absolute government and disposal in his heavenly 
kingdom, of course, not excluding, but conjointly 
with the Father and the Holy Ghost. (Compare 
v. 12.) — So much as to the general ascription of 
divine attributes : let us now inquire whether any 
particular ones are ascribed to the Lord Jesus 
Christ. 

ETERNITY. 

VJ1I. Col. i. 17. " And he is before all things." 
As nothing but God can be before all things, Christ, 
here represented to be before all things, must be 
God. That ttocvtw is neuter, is plain from the fol- 
lowing clause, which has ra ndivToc, and that it can- 
not mean before all things in the new creation, as 
Unitarians maintain, is shewn at large, chap, vi, 
sect. v. 

IX. Heb. i. 8. '< Thy throne, O God, is for 
ever and ever." Eternity is here expressly ascribed 
to him who is called God ; and that the words are 
clearly and unequivocally addressed to the Son has 
been shewn, chap. iv. sect. xi. Christ, therefore, is 
eternal, God for ever and ever, 

X. Heb. i. 10—12. " Thou, Lord, in the be- 
ginning hast laid the foundation of the earth ; 

R 



242 Divine Attributes ascribed to Christ, [chap. v. 

and the heavens are the works of thy hands : they 
shall perish, but thou remainest ; and they all shall 
wax old, as doth a garment ; and as a vesture shalt 
thou fold them up, and they shall be changed : but 

THOU ART THE SAME, AND THY YEARS SHALL NOT FAIL." 

This is the description which the Psalmist gives of 
the eternity and immutability of the one true God, 
(Ps. cii. 25.) ; and as it is undoubtedly applied by 
the inspired author of this epistle to Christ, without 
any restriction or limitation, it must be understood 
in the same signification. Hence, when it is said 
of Christ, " they shall perish, but thou remainest ; 
they shall be changed : but thou art the same, and 
thy years shall not fail," it cannot otherwise be 
understood than as a plain declaration of the Son's 
eternity and immutability. See chap. vi. sect. vii. 

XI. Heb. vii. 3. ec — having* neither beginning- 
of days, nor end of life ; but, made like unto the 
Son of God, abideth a priest continually." This is 
spoken of Melchisedec, whom the Apostle introduces 
as a type of Christ, and the meaning* is, " That in 
" the account given of him by Moses, he had nei- 
" ther beginning of days, nor end of life, as a 
s( priest, fixed by any law of God : so that he did 
" not begin to exercise the priest's office at a deter- 
(( mined age, nor cease to be a priest when super- 
ec annuated, as was the case with the sons of Aaron, 
ec but exercised the priest's office all his life; in 
ec which respect, his priesthood was well fitted 
" to be a type of the perpetual priesthood of the 



chap, v.] a Proof of his Divinity. 243 

<c Son of God*." Melchisedec, by having in this 
way, <e neither beginning of days, nor end of life," 
was " made like unto the Son of God ;" wherefore 
it should seem that Christ must really have that of 
which Melchisedec was only a typical representa- 
tion., namely, an eternal existence without be- 
ginning and without end. This is further confirmed 
by what the Apostle adds, v. 24, 25. that ec this 
man, i. e. Jesus our high-priest, because he con- 
tinueth for ever, hath an unchangeable priest- 
hood. Wherefore, he is able also to save them to 
the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing 
he ever liveth to make intercession for them." 

XII. Heb. xiii. 8. " Jesus Christ the same 

YESTERDAY, AND TO-DAY, AND FOR EVER." If this be 

spoken of Christ, it is an express declaration of his 
eternal and immutable nature. Several commen- 
tators, it must be confessed, have understood it to 
refer to the doctrine of the Gospel, sometimes 
called Christ or Jesus Christ f ; yet the following 
reasons seem to confirm its relation to the person of 
Christ. First, This is taking the words in a literal 
signification, which is always preferable to a figura- 

* Macknight, whose illustration of this chapter is admirable. 
The curious reader will find the person, &c. of Melchisedec, 
discussed with great learning and ability in Heidegger, Hist. 
Patriarch, torn. ii. exerc. ii. See also Faber, Horce Mosaica, 
vol. ii. p. 58. Stackhouse, Hist, of the Bible, lib. iii. cap. i. 
Scott, Christian Life, P. II. vol. ii. § 4. 

+ Schleusner, Lex. Xpi<r?o?. 4. 

r2 



244 Divine Attributes ascribed to Christ, [chap, y. 



tive construction, when no necessity exists for de- 
parting from it. Secondly, The context requires 
it. 6: Remember them which have the rule over 
you, who have spoken to you the word of God : of 
whose conversation considering the ending, imi- 
tate their faith : Jesus Christ yesterday, and to- 
day, is the same, and for ever." The verse in 
question, then, describes the object of the faith of 
the rulers ; i. e. as Peirce paraphrases it, " consi- 
" dering the conclusion of their life and behaviour, 
" imitate their faith : for the object of their faith, 
ee Jesus Christ, is the same now as he was then, and 
" will be the same for ever, to the end of time 
Thirdly, As u for ever," at the end of the sentence 
means an eternity to come, so " yesterday," by 
being opposed to it, means an eternity past. It is, 
in truth, almost self-evident that " yesterday, to day, 
and for ever," denotes an eternal duration, consist- 
ing of past, present, and future. In the Revelations, 
eternal, unchangeable existence is described by the 

* Peirce adds in a note. " The connection and meaning of 
" this verse are now very easy. It contains a reason why the 
" Hebrews should imitate the faith of their deceased, and 
" perhaps martyred, pastors, viz, because the Apostle knew, 
" that those pastors believed aright concerning Christ ; and 
<f that there was no change made since in the object of their 
" faith." I quote him merely because he seems to have rightly 
explained the connection, and properly refers ver. 8. to Christ; 
but he does not appear to have reached the full meaning of it. 
In the text, I have altered the received translation, as 1 think 
it should be rendered. See Macknight ; also Woltii Curie, and 
Bengellii Gnomon in foe. 



chap, v.] a Proof of his Divinity. 245 

character of " which is, and which was, and which 
is to come/' The Gospel, it is true, is called 
" everlasting'/' Revel xiv. 6. ; but this does not 
respect the time past, but time to come, and denotes 
" the unchangeable constitution of the Christian 
" religion, which should remain always the same, 
" in the truth of its doctrines, the certainty of its 
" rewards and punishments to everlasting ages*." 
In this epistle, mention is made of the " everlasting* 
covenant/' (ch. xiii. 20.) which clearly denotes a 
covenant that should never be changed. It may 
also be further urged, that the Gospel may be called 
eternal, because it was from everlasting in the 
divine decree. Perhaps it may ; but this answer 
will not apply to Heb. xiii. 8. for, admitting that 
the doctrine of the Gospel may be called " yester- 
day," or from everlasting, as being in the divine 
decree, yet how can it be said to be " for ever/' for 
all eternity to come, in the divine decree? In short, 
had the Apostle meant to assert the immutability of 
the Christian religion, it is utterly incredible that he 
would have expressed it by " Jesus Christ, yester- 
day, and to-day, is the same, and for ever whence 
it follows that these words are to be referred to the 
person of Christ. Fourthly, o uvtw is the very 
same expression that is applied personally to Christ, 
ch. i. 12. of this epistle, to describe his immuta- 
bility. Fifthly, The Fathers of the fourth and fifth 



* Lowman's Paraphrase in loc* See also Schleosiier s 



246 Divine Attributes ascribed to Christ, [chap. v. 

centuries frequently cite this text against the Arians ; 
and they are not contradicted by those before them *. 
— These reasons, in my apprehension, clearly es- 
tablish the application of this verse personally to 
Christ, and we need not hesitate in appealing to it 
as a testimony to our Lord's eternal and unchange- 
able existence. 

XIII. 1 John ii. 13. " I write unto you, fa- 
thers, because ye have known him that is 3 from 
the beginning so v. 14. iyvuxuTt rou aV 
" This," says Dr. Middleton, " is the reading, so 
" far as I know, of all the MSS. ; and it might be 
" thought impossible that so plain a sentence should 
" be liable to misconstruction. c Ye have known 

the Person who was from the beginning, or, who 
" has existed from eternity/ So, o h rofg ovpuvoTg 
" means Him who is in heaven : but it is needless 
" to adduce examples of an usage, which conti- 
" nually presents itself to the notice of all readers 
" of Greek." And he thus concludes his valuable 
remarks : " This text, therefore, is another of those 
" which affirm the eternal pre-existence of Christ; 
" and it harmonizes exactly with the language of 
" the same writer in the exordium of his Gospel, 
" 4 In the beginning was the Word/" It may 
also be remarked, that the words, u him who was 
from the beginning," tqv *V «/>?C^ unquestionably 

* Dr. Waterland, Scrm. VII. at Lady Moyer's. Suicer ? 
Thesaur, torn. ii. p. 256*. 

5 



chap, v.] a Proof of his Divinity. 247 

refer to Jesus Christ, because, First, There was no 
necessity for asserting the eternity of the Father. 
Secondly, <c He who was from the beginning/' is 
expressly distinguished from the Father, who is 
mentioned at the end of the verse *. 

XIV. Prov. viii. 2% 23. « The Lord possessed 
me in the beginning of his way, before his works 
of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the 
beginning or ever the earth was," &c. In the 
Attempt towards an improved Translation of the 
Proverbs, I have endeavoured to prove that this 
passage describes the hypostatic Wisdom, or the 
second Person in the Trinity, and if the evidence 
there produced satisfactorily establishes this inter- 
pretation, and 1 have the strongest conviction that 
it does, the eighth chapter of Proverbs is a clear 
and explicit testimony to the eternity of the Son of 
God. 

XV. Isaiah ix. 6. " Unto us a child is born — 
and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor^ 

* Rosenmiiller, who is not inclined hastily to admit inter- 
pretations favourable to Christ's divinity, explains the words 
rov utt ap^>5?, " nam cognoscitis teternum, Jesum Christum, 
salutis auctorem, qui non solum longaevus est, verum etiam 
semper fuit apud patrem. Ergo non decet vos praeferre huic 
aeterno, qui vobis aeter-nam salutem largiri potest, et-largiri 
vuit, res caducas, et cito perituras, v. 17. 'o Lir otpxps h. 1. 
non videtur esse Pater; nam diserte ab eo discernitur. For- 
mula valet idem^ quod verba notissima Joh. i. 1. h & h 
*oy«?." Scholia in loc. See Bengel, Gnomon in loc. 



248 Divine Attributes ascribed to Christ, [chap. v. 

the Mighty God, the everlasting Father, the 
Prince of Peace." The literal rendering is " the 
Father of Eternity/' an oriental manner of express- 
ing- the attribute of eternity ; and as the passage is 
a prophetical description of our Saviour, he is here 
declared to be eternal. See chap. ii. sect. xv. 

XVI. Micah v. 2. " But thou, Beth-lehem 
Ephratah, though thou be little among the thou- 
sands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth 
unto me that is to be Ruler in Israel; whose goings 

FORTH HAVE BEEN FROM OF OLD, FROM EVERLASTING." 

This important prophecy was strictly and literally 
fulfilled in the person of our Saviour. He was 
certainly born in Bethlehem ; he was a Ruler in 
Israel ; he was from everlasting. It is applied to 
our Saviour by the whole stream of Christian 
Fathers and commentators, by the Chaldee Para- 
phrast, by the Jewish Rabbis, and by the chief 
priests and scribes of the people, whom Herod 
convened in solemn assembly, Matt. ii. 4 *. 

The Hebrew word, rendered " whose goings 
forth/' is frequently applied to birth or genera- 
tion f ; and here it denotes our Lord's eternal 

* The application of this prophecy to the Messiah is amply 
yindicated by Bishop Chandler, Defence, cap. ii. § 1. and 
Vindication, cap. i. § 1. Kidder, Demonst. of the Messias, P. I. 
p. 20. et seq. Huet, Dem. Evangel. Dr. Hales, Dissertation X. 
Faith in the Trinity, Lett. V. and New Analysis, vol. ii. p. 461. 

f «y» is applied to being born, Gen. x. 14. xvii. 6. xxv. 21. 
xxxv. 11. xlvi. 26. Isa. xi. 1. Job i. 25. <&c. 



chap, v.] a Proof of his Divinity. 



249 



generation. " To signify the perfection and excel- 
<c lency of that generation/' says Bishop Chandler, 
ee the word for Birth is expressed pi u rally. It is a 
" common Hebraism, to denote the eminency or 
" continuation of a thing or action, by the plural 
" number. God shall judge the world in righ- 
" teousnesses and equity, Ps. xcviii. 9. or most 
" righteously and equitably. The angers of the 
" Lord, Lam. iv. 16. &c*." This explanation is 
rendered highly probable by the same Hebrew root 
occurring before, " out of thee shall he come forth " 
which must necessarily denote the nativity of Christ 
in Bethlehem ; and by the following words, sc from 
of old, from everlasting," or, as the original may be 
literally rendered, " from of old, from the days of 
eternity for our Lords " goings forth from the 
days of eternity/' can signify nothing else than his 
antecedent and eternal generation f . 

* Defence, p. 154. 

f Dathe renders the last clause, " antiquissima erit origme, 
ab seternis temporibus." " From of old, from days of eternity," 
Hales ; so most in Poli Synop, " From the days of hidden 
ages/' Newcome. " Imo a ditbus ceternitatis, i. e. priusquam 
natus fuerit, jam ab aeterno extitit. Indicatur Messiae divina 
origo atque natura, qui et ab Jesaia ix. 6. pater ceternitatis, 
i. e. eeternus vocatur." Rosenmiiller, Scholia in loc. This inter- 
pretation is most ably defended by Pococke, Comm. in loc. It is 
likewise confirmed by the ancient versions, e|o£o* ocvrov die <%£>k 
If ypepar aluvog. LXX. " ab initio, a diebus aeternitatis." Vulg. 
The Syriac and Targum are like the Hebrew, and cannot, 
therefore, be adduced. The Hexapla, ed. Montfaucon, is 
defective in this place. All this constitutes a powerful body 
of evidence ; and if the words eaVljr »»»n QlpS mean, in the 



850 Divine Attributes ascribed to Christy [chap. v. 

It is not to be denied that the Hebrew words 
rendered " from of old" and cc from everlasting/* 
do sometimes signify only an indefinite length of 
time ; yet they likewise occasionally signify eternity 
in the strictest sense, as any one may be convinced 
by consulting the Hebrew Lexicons. We have 
here two of these expressions, which often, though 
not always, signify eternity; and their being placed 
together would seem intended to remove the ambi- 
guity attending them when separate ; especially as 
no limitation of time is either intimated in the con- 
text, or is deducible from the nature of the thing 
itself. If we doubt their signifying eternity, it 
would be difficult to prove the eternity of God from 
the express words of the Old Testament, for all the 
phrases employed are liable to the same ambiguity. 
Still it cannot be said that the expressions in ques- 
tion indisputably denote eternity ; and, therefore, 
the clause may be interpreted either of the Messiah's 
extraction from an ancient and illustrious family, 
or of his appearance and displays of power, his 
acts for the benefit of his people, and the destruc- 
tion of his enemies *. I own this appears to me 
extremely improbable ; but admitting its truth, 
though the argument for our Lord's eternity falls to 
the ground, it will prove his pre- existence. Out 

strict sense, from of old, from everlasting, the Messiah's 
" goings forth, from everlasting," must refer to his eternal 
generation. 

* Grotius adopts the first, Newcome and Parkhurst the other. 
See Seeker in Newcome, Glass, p. 575. 



<jhap. v.] a Proof of his Divinity. 251 

of Bethlehem was to come a Ruler, whose goings 
forth have been from of old ; now these ee goings 
forth" are distinguished from, and prior to his 
coming out of Bethlehem ; and hence our Lord 
must have existed previous to his birth at Beth- 
lehem *. This conclusion cannot be evaded. 

The quotation of Micah v. 2. in Matt. ii. 6. 
apparently differs in a remarkable manner from the 
original Hebrew, and yet the Prophet and Evan- 
gelist may be reconciled to each other. Micah 
says the Messiah was to spring from Beth-lehem 
Ephratah, St. Matthew, from " Bethlehem in the 
land of Judah yet these are only two different 
names of the same place, as is evident from a com- 
parison of Gen. xxxv. 19. with Jud. xvii. 7. xix. 2. 
and Ruth i. 1. with Ruth iv. 11. and the village, for 
it was nothing more, was called by these names to 
distinguish it from another Bethlehem in the tribe 
of Zebulon in the north of Palestine, (Josh. xix. 15.) 
— The Prophet says, this Bethlehem was " among 
the thousands of Judah," the Evangelist, " among 
the princes of Judah." But the lsraelitish tribes 
were divided into thousands, over each of which 
thousands was a prince or chief; (Exod. xviii. 21. 
Deut. xxxiii. 17. Numb. i. 26. 1 Sam. x. 19.) so that 
to say among the thousands or princes is all one. 

* " rendered whose goings forth, doth manifestly 

" and properly so signify it cannot be denied, and that it 
" implies, in the person of whom it is spoken, an having been 
" or gone forth actually, when or before the prophet spake 
" these words." Pococke, Comm, in he. 



252 Divine Attributes ascribed to Christ, [chap. v. 

— Again, the Prophet says, " though thou (Beth- 
lehem) be little among the thousands of Judah," 
the Evangelist, " thou art not the least among/' 
&c. ; the most approved way of reconciling which 
is to read Micah's words interrogatively, " Is it 
little that thou shouldest be/ 5 or " Art thou little to 
be reckoned among the thousands of Judah ?" un- 
derstanding it negatively, i. e. " Thou art not," in 
the same sense with Matthew's " Thou art not least 
among the princes of Judah*/' 

XVII. Lastly, it has been shewn in the pre- 
ceding chapter, that the titles of Alpha and Omega, 
the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End, 
are expressly given to our Lord ; which prove him 

* The profound orientalist, Pococke, proposes to explain 
from the Arabic, and to translate it great, or of great 
esteem, (Not. in Porta Mosis, cap. ii. and Comm. in loc.) but 
all the ancient versions give it the sense of little, and the same 
root, occurring elsewhere above forty times, never signifies 
great; for Jer. xlviii. 4. and Zech. xiii. 7. do not bear him ouL 
The interpretation of Pococke is well refuted in a note to 
Kidder's Dem. P. I. p. 23. Lond. 1726. Lud. Capellus recon- 
ciles Micah and Matt, in a different way, " Quum Michas 
dicit, Bethlehem esse nimis parvam, ut censeatur h yxX^aw 
"Uv$ot 9 respicit ad urbis illius statum humilem atque contemp- 
tum, qui fuit tempore prophetae, eamque de abjecto illo statu 
consolatur et evehit promissione gloriosa orituri ex ea Messiae. 
Matthaeus vero quum negat, Bethlehem esse m in imam in illis 
vyipoo-h, respicit ad Christi nativitatem, qua condecoranda erat 
et illustranda urbs ilia." Critica Sacra, torn. iii. p. 163. ed 
Vogel et Scharfenberg. Rosenmiiller adopts this mode of 
reconciliation in his Scholia in Mic, v. 1. 



chap, v.] a Proof of his Divinity. 253 

to be eternal. The same appellations are used to 
distinguish the supreme God, and are plainly signi- 
ficative of eternity. Wherefore, by applying these 
titles to the Son, it is not to be doubted, that the 
sacred writer intended to ascribe eternal existence 
to him. 

IMMUTABILITY. 

XVIII. If the texts quoted in the preceding 
section, prove the eternity of the Son, they must 
also establish his immutability ; for as the existence 
of one of these attributes implies the other, to 
prove either is at the same time to prove both. It 
is, therefore, unnecessary to enlarge upon the evi- 
dence of the Son's immutability. 

OMNISCIENCE. 

XIX. Matt. ix. 4. " And Jesus, knowing their 

THOUGHTS." 

Matt. xii. 25. " And Jesus knew their thoughts, 
and said," &c. 

Mark ii. 8. " Jesus perceived in his spirit that 
they so reasoned within themselves." 

Luke ix. 47. " And Jesus, perceiving the 
thought of their heart." 

John ii. 24, 25. " But Jesus did not commit him- 
self unto them, because he knew all men ; and 
needed not that any should testify of man : for he 

KNEW WHAT WAS IN MAN." 

John vi. 61. " When Jesus knew in himself that 
his disciples murmured at it, he said," &c, 



254 Divine Attributes ascribed to Christ, [chap. v. 

John vi. 64. " Jesus knew from the beginning 
who they were that believed not, and who should 
betray him." 

John xiii. 11. " For Jesus knew who should be- 
tray him." 

John xvi. 19. " Now Jesus knew that they were 
desirous to ask him, and said unto them, Do ye 
enquire among yourselves/' &c. 

These texts, and many others which might be 
quoted, ascribe to our blessed Lord that knowledge 
of the thoughts of men, which can only exist in the 
divine mind *. To know the thoughts of others, 
to perceive the ideas rising in the mind, and to 
discern the various movements of human cogitation, 
is so far beyond the reach of the intellectual facul- 
ties of man, that such a power can only reside in a 
being who is omniscient. 

The Almighty may, undoubtedly, communicate 
to men a knowledge of what is passing in the 
minds of others ; and he seems, at times, to have 
granted such a knowledge to his favoured servants, 
as an evidence of their mission, and far the accom- 
plishment of his gracious and benevolent designs. 
This is evident from the history of Elisha, when he 
told the king of Israel the words that he spoke in 
his bed-chamber f. Ahijah knew the thoughts of 

* See Primate Newcome's Observations on our Lord's Con- 
duct, ch. ii. § 7. 

+ 2 Kings vi. 12. In the history recorded 2 Kings v. 26. 
Elisha says to Gehazi, " Went not mine heart with thee, when 
the man turned again from the chariot to meet thee f" But it 



. chap, v.] a Proof of his Divinity. 255 

Jeroboam's wife, (1 Kings xiv. 5.); and Daniel 
revealed to Nebuchadnezzar the thoughts of his 
mind, which had vanished from his memory, (Dan. 
ii. 29.) In the apostolic age, God communicated 
to some the miraculous gift of " discerning of 
spirits that is, of discovering whether a teacher 
truly or falsely pretended to inspiration*; which 
would have been impossible without, on some occa- 
sions, knowing the sentiments of the heart. St. 
Paul perceived that Simon Magus was in the gall of 
bitterness and in the bond of iniquity, (Acts viii. 23.) 
It cannot admit of doubt that, to a certain extent, a 
knowledge of the thoughts may be communicated 
to man, and that, in some instances, it has been so 
communicated : yet there are some circumstances in 
the ascription of this knowledge to Christ, which 
serve to indicate his omniscience. 

In the examples just cited, this knowledge of 
what was passing in the minds of others, was either 
expressly attributed to divine inspiration, or it was 

cannot be inferred from this that Elisha was made acquainted 
with Gehazi's thoughts, " cor meum ivit. Animo veluti praesens 
fuit, quia Deus illi quod procul fiebat objecit quasi coram 
occulis gereretur." Le Clerc. A similar expression, 1 Cor. v. 3,4. 
does not prove that St. Paui was made acquainted with the 
proceedings at Corinth otherwise than by report, (compare v. 1. 
where he attributes it to report) or perhaps it only means 
that he was present with them, " with respect tp the interest he 
took in their affairs, and the knowledge he had (from report ) 
of their affairs." Macknight ; see Poli Synop. 

* 1 Cor. xii. 10. 1 John iv. 1. Macknight, Schleusner, 
Rosenmuller, 



356 Divine Attributes ascribed to Christ, [chap. v. 

the knowledge of some cogitation accompanied 
with an overt act, which it suited the high designs 
of heaven to reveal. The case of Ahijah, of Daniel, 
and of those who had the gift of discerning of 
spirits, was evidently supernatural, and represented 
as such ; in that of Elisha and St. Paul, the inward 
thoughts of the king of Israel and Simon were 
manifested by certain outward acts, which seem to 
be the reason of God's making known what passed 
within the mind. In all these instances, the know- 
ledge of the heart was confined within certain 
limits ; it extended not beyond the particular occa- 
sion on which God communicated this supernatural 
knowledge; its object was specific, beyond which 
it could not go ; and in no case whatever is any 
prophet or inspired person stated, in general terms, 
to know the thoughts of men. Our Saviour, on 
the contrary, is said, in language the most ample 
and express, to have a knowledge of the thoughts. 
" Jesus knew their thoughts ;" " he perceived in 
his spirit that they so reasoned ;" " he knew all 
men " he knew what was in man ;" " he knew 
who should betray him/' &c. Here is no restriction 
to particular times or particular circumstances ; 
the expressions are general and unqualified ; nor is 
it possible to select terms more expressive of perfect 
and unlimited knowledge. 

A knowledge of the thoughts of man is claimed 
by the Almighty as his divine prerogative. " The 
Lord knoweth the thoughts of man,' , (Ps. xciv, 11.); 
" Thou understandest my thoughts afar off;— 



chap, v.] a Proof of his Divinity. 257 

Search me, O God, and know my heart," (Ps. 
cxxxix. 1. 23.) ; " I know their works and their 
thoughts/' (Isa. Ixvi. 13.) ; " He declareth unto 
man what is his thought/' (Amos iv. 18.) ; " The 
Lord searcheth all hearts, and understandeth all the 
imaginations of the thoughts/' (1 Chron. xxviii. 9.) 
Thus Jehovah hath reserved to himself " the know- 
ledge of the thoughts." Yet it is ascribed to our 
Lord in the same extensive manner, without any 
restriction whatsoever ; which necessarily leads to 
the conclusion that his knowledge, like Jehovah's, 
is all-comprehensive. 

XX. Matt. xi. 27. u No man knoweth the Son, 
but the Father; neither knoweth any man the 
Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the 
Son will reveal him." Observe, first, our Lord 
here declares himself to be incomprehensible to all 
creatures ; " No man (or rather, ' no one,') know- 
eth the Son, but the Father no person, but God, 
knows him, his essence, and attributes. Is not this 
singular and unaccountable language, were it spoken 
of a mere man ? And had Jesus been only an in- 
spired prophet, would it not have been unparalleled 
presumption in him to speak in this manner? Se- 
condly, a perfect knowledge of the Father is above 
the grasp of the human intellect ; his being and 
perfections far transcend the feeble comprehension 
of man ; yet the Son comprehends them, " neither 
knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and 
he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him though 

S 



358 Divine Attributes ascribed to Christ, [chap. v. 

man cannot comprehend him, the Son knows his 
nature, perfections, counsels, and operations. What- 
ever correct knowledge we have of the Father, we 
possess by communication from the Son ; whereas 
the Son knows him intimately and completely. 
Thirdly, this knowledge is represented as reciprocal. 
The Father and the Son have a full and immediate 
knowledge of each other, of which no one else is 
possessed : and this knowledge is equal in kind and 
degree. As no one knoweth the Son but the Father, 
so, exactly in the same way, no one knoweth the 
Father but the Son. What can be a clearer proof 
of the omniscience of the Son * ? 

The Unitarian gloss is, No one but the Father 
can fully comprehend the object and extent of the 
Son's commission; and no one but the Son com- 
prehends the counsels and designs of the Father, 
with respect to the instruction and reformation of 
mankind f . By such paraphrase as this, and by 

* " Spiritus sanctus non excluditur : mentio tamen hie non 
fit, quia ejus ceconomia nonduin ita nota erat hominibus." 
Bengel, Gnomon in loc. 

+ Unitarian Version in loc, Belsham, Calm Inquiry, p. 35. 
Mr. Wardiaw replies to this gloss with great force. " What was 
" there, we may further ask, in the idea of a human prophet, 
" commissioned to teach to mankind the certainty of a future 
" state, and the necessity of a life of virtue to the attainment 

of happiness in that state,— what was there in this idea that 
" rendered it so peculiarly wonderful, so entirely above created 
t( conception ;— as incomprehensible by any besides Jehovah, 
" as the nature of Jehovah himself! The difficulty here does 
" not consist merely in this prophet placing his knowledge of 



chap, v.] a Proof of his Divinity. 259 

inserting words at pleasure., the Bible may be made 
to speak any thing. There is no mention, in the 
original, of the Son's commission, and of the Fa- 
ther's counsels and designs ; it is said briefly and 
simply, " no man knoweth the Son, toy vlov, but the 
Father, nor the Father, rov nar^a,, but the Son/' 
which surely, in the natural import, means the Son 
himself, and the Father himself. This is evident 
from the parallel passage in Luke x, 22. " No man 
knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and 
who the Father is, but the Son." If the Father 
and Son are known to each other alone, and known 
to no one else, we may infer that, as the knowledge 
of the one is, so is the knowledge of the other, in 
both infinite in degree, and omniscient. 

XXL These observations may serve to illustrate 
some other texts, as, <c No man hath seen God at 
any time ; the only- begotten Son, who is in the 
bosom of the Father, he hath declared him," (John 
i. 18.) ; " Not that any man hath seen the Father, 
save he who is of God, (i. e. by eternal generation) 
he hath seen the Father/' (John vi. 46.) ; where to 
see the Father, must mean to contemplate his 
nature, glory, and perfections; since, in the sense 

" God on an equality with God's knowledge of him ; but in 
" his representing himself and the infinite Jehovah as reci- 
" procally, and equally, the objects of knowledge to each 
" otSier in a sense that excludes all other beings, on both 
" sides alike from any participation in it." Unitarianism 
incapable of Vindication, p. 307. 

s2 



260 Divine Attributes ascribed to Christ, [chap. v. 

of being acquainted with the divine will and pur- 
poses, as some explain the phrase, it is not true. All 
the prophets were instructed to declare the will of 
God, and the Apostles in this sense saw God, and 
revealed his purposes more fully than our Lord by 
his personal ministry*. But explain the phrase 
sc seeing the Father/' as you please, the Son, €C he 
who is of God," is clearly distinguished from all 
creatures; the Son " hath seen the Father," whom 
" no man hath seen," (John i. 18.); therefore the 
Son is no creature, and if not created, he must be 
eternal and divine. 

XXII. John x. 14. u I am the good Shepherd, 
and know my sheep, and am known of mine." A 
great deal is implied in these few words. Could 
Jesus know those who really belong to his fold, 
could he distinguish them from all others, and 
wherever dispersed over the whole world, or could 
he be acquainted with the countless multitude of 
believers, who, in successive generations, arise upon 
the earth, unless his knowledge were infinite ? The 
answer may be safely left to every unbiassed mind. 

XXIII. John x. 15. "As the Father knoweth 
me, even so know I the Father -)." These words 

* He hath seen the Father. " Is perfectam de Deo rebus- 
que divinifi habet cognitionem." Schleusner, opa&>. 4. 

-f " Even as the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father." 
Campbell's translation, who is supported by the Syriac and 
Vulgate. The sense is the same as E. T. and the connection 



chap, v.] a Proof of his Divinity. 261 

clearly mean, that, in whatever manner the Father 
knows the Son, in the same manner the Son knows 
the Father. Now, no one doubts that the Father's 
knowledge of the Son is full, perfect, and imme- 
diate, because he is omniscient ; the Son's know- 
ledge of the Father, therefore, is in the same man- 
ner, full, perfect, and immediate, which could not 
be except it were infinite. 

XXIV. John xvi. 30. " Now are we sure that 
thou rnowest all things, and needest not that any 
man should ask thee." 

John xxi. 17. Peter " said unto him, Lord, thou 
knowest all THiNGs/' In this, and the foregoing 
text, the words are general, without any reservation 
being intimated in the context ; nor does the Evan- 
gelist, who records them, insert any caution to pre- 
vent our understanding them in the highest and 
most unlimited sense # . 

XXV. Acts i. 24. " Thou, Lord, which know- 

makes it clear, that Jesus knows the faithful, and is known by 
them, even as the Father knoweth the Son, and is known by 
him. The particle tta&m shews that the knowledge of the 
Father and the Son is reciprocal. 

* I have not appealed to Col. ii. 3. "In whom are hid all 
the treasures of wisdom and knowledge," because it is some- 
what ambiguous whether h u> refers to " mystery," to " God," 
or to " Christ," all mentioned immediately before ; and because 
there may be doubts about the true reading. According to 
Griesbach, who omits ku\ war^oi x«.l rov ^pia-rov, the text is 
irrelevant to our present object, as " in whom" refers to " God." 



262 Divine Attributes ascribed to Christ, [chap. v. 

est the hearts of all men." This is an address 
to Christ, as is shewn, chap. vii. sect. vii. 

Revel, ii. 23. " I am he which searcheth the 

REINS AND HEARTS." 

John ii. 24, 25. " He knew all men — he knew 
what was in man." To be the searcher of the 
heart is the peculiar and distinguishing character of 
the one true God. In Acts xv. 8. he is styled 
" God who knoweth the hearts;" and by St. Paul 
" him that searcheth the hearts/' (Rom. viii. 27.) 
Solomon, in his prayer at the dedication of the 
temple, addresses him, " Thou, even thou only 
knowest the hearts of all the children of men," 
(1 Kings viii. 39.); and Jehovah himself declares, 
by the prophet Jeremiah, (ch. xvii. 10.) " I, the 
Lord, search the heart, I try the reins.'' When we 
find this distinguishing character of Jehovah given 
to Jesus, in the same unlimited terms, and in the 
same emphatical manner, we are constrained to 
infer that both are alike omniscient, and conse- 
quently indivisible in essence. 

XXVI. Heb. iv. 12, 13. " For the Word of 
God is living and effectual, and more cutting than 
any two-edged sword, piercing even to the parting 
both of soul and spirit, and of the joints also and 
marrows, and is a discerner of the devices and 
purposes of the heart. And there is no creature 
unapparent in his sight, for all things are naked and 
open to the eyes of him, to whom we must give an 



chap, v.] a Proof of his Divinity. 263 

account*." It has been greatly debated among 
the commentators whether this is to be understood 
of Christ, or of the Scripture revelation; but as all 
the characters are plainly personal, and the appel- 
lation of " Word" is appropriated to Christ in other 
passages, little doubt remains, of its being a fine 
and magnificent description of the hypostatic Word. 
It may, however, be proper to state the grounds of 
this opinion. 

First " For the Word is living," £ws> ycig o Xoyoq, 
is equivalent to " the Word of life," or rather, 
living Word, © xlyoq rrig £cori?, in the beginning of 
St. John's first epistle; the same epithet of 44 liv- 
ing," is often applied to the divine Being in the 
New Testament, and though it may undoubtedly 
be metaphorically applied to the Gospel, it is literally 
the characteristic of a person. Secondly, What 
but a person can be " a discern er of the devices 
and purposes of the heart ?" Thirdly, The words 
" there is no creature unapparent in his sight" 
cannot, without violence, be explained of the Scrip- 
ture revelation ; whereas, they are extremely appli- 
cable to our Redeemer. Fourthly, Not only the 
words " all things are naked and open to the eyes 
of him," are descriptive of a person ; but if Trpo? ov 
ifMv o x6yos be correctly rendered, " to whom we 
must give an account," its reference to Christ is at 
once established, as we know that he is to be our 

* Macknight's Translation, which is better than our standard 
version. It mainly agrees with that of Dr. Doddridge. See 
Wolfius and Poli Synop, 



264 Divine Attributes ascribed to Christ, [chap* v. 

Judge at the final day of accounts *. Fifthly, The 
following verses render it probable that the subject 
of this description is Jesus Christ. Sixthly, This 
passage was understood of Christ by several of the 
ancient Fathers, both before and after the Council 
of Nice f . 

An objection has been made, that our Lord is 
no where else styled the Word by St. Paul. But 
why may he not be once so called by this Apostle, 
as he is once by St. Luke, (i. 2.) ; not to say, that 
this appellation might be used with peculiar pro- 
priety in writing to the Hebrews, who were familiar 
with it as a title of the Messiah J. It is also ob- 
jected, that the context requires us to understand 
the passage of the Gospel, or divine revelation in 
general. An exactly opposite conclusion may, in 
my apprehension, be drawn from the context. In 
the two following verses (v. 14, 15.) the Apostle is 
confessedly speaking of the Son of God ; and as 

* That the original admits this version there can be no 
doubt. The other renderings " with whom we have to do," 
and " de quo loquimur," though they give no peculiar support 
to the interpretation here defended, yet do not oppose it. The 
Syriac is *' cui reddunt rationem." 

f Dr. Waterland, Sermon VII. at Lady Moyer's. S nicer 
says, " Non tamen in eo consentiunt veteres." torn. ii. p. 254. 
Witsius, Miscel. Sac, vol. ii. exercit. iii. § 40. 

X " Quamvis Paulus alias ea nomenclatione non utatur; ra- 
tionem tamen habuit, cur nunc uteretur. Nam Hebraeis scribit, 
quibus hoc nomen familiare, tarn Syro-Chaldaea quam Graeca 
lingua loquentibus." Witsius, Miscellanea Sacra, torn. ii. 
p. 115. 



chap, v.] a Proof of his Divinity. 265 

the characters described in the passage under con- 
sideration are personal,, it is natural to suppose 
them spoken of the same person,, the Son of God. 

These reasons seem to prove decisively its refer- 
ence to the divine and consubstantial Word, of 
whom it is said, that he is <( a discerner of the 
devices and purposes of the heart," that there is 
" no creature unapparent in his sight/' and that 
" all things are naked and open to his eyes all 
which, in a strong and lively manner, describe his 
divine omniscience. 

XXVII. Against this preponderating evidence 
of the Son's omniscience, a few texts have been 
pointed out, and stated to be at variance with that 
doctrine, and Unitarianism, with its accustomed art 
of amplification, has held them forth as an incon- 
trovertible proof of its cheerless system. It might 
be sufficient to reply, that, since the arguments for 
the Son's being infinite in knowledge are numerous, 
clear, and convincing, those few texts which may* 
appear to imply the contrary, cannot do so in 
reality, and must be capable of a satisfactory recon- 
ciliation; for Scripture cannot contradict Scripture. 
This should seem to be a fair and adequate answer 
to the objection drawn from some passages appa- 
rently at variance with the doctrine of our Lord's 
omniscience; but lest we should be suspected of 
being afraid to encounter the Socinian in the field, 
let us coolly and impartially examine the texts which, 
in his opinion, instead of delineating our Redeemer 



266 Divine Attributes ascribed to Christ, [chap. v. 

as all wise, represent him as a frail and peccable 
man, possessed only of limited knowledge. 

His palmary argument is founded upon Mark 
xiii. 32. " But of that day and that hour knoweth no 
man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither 
the Son ? but the Father * ;" which he declares to 
be incompatible with the Son's infinite knowledge. 
As the clause " neither the Son," is found in every 
known manuscript and version, its authenticity is 
indisputable ; and therefore we must look for a so- 
lution of the difficulty in some reasonable, critical, 
and unforced interpretation. Nor shall we be dis- 
appointed in this search ; the learned defenders of 
our holy faith have proposed two expositions, either 
of which removes the difficulty that the text con- 
fessedly presents, and shews its harmony and con- 
sistence with the whole tenor of Scripture. 

First, Whether " that day and that hour/' refer 
to the destruction of Jerusalem, or to the day of 
judgment, our Lord might say that the Son knew it 
not, because it formed no part of the revelation he 
was commissioned to disclose to the world. As the 
Messiah, he was the delegate of the Father, and 
only delivered such doctrines and instructions as 

* " — no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only," 
Matt. xxiv. 36. where the clause " neither the Son" is omitted. 
It is inserted, however, in the MSS. BD. 13. 86. 124. and in- 
some versions and Fathers ; and Sandius contends for its ge- 
nuineness (Interp. Paradox, p. 86.) but as this is insufficient 
evidence for the genuineness of the clause, Griesbach does 
not insert it in his text. 



chap, v.] a Proof of his Divinity. 267 

were agreeable to that commission. In his official 
capacity, he says, " My doctrine is not -mine, but 
his that sent me/' (John vii. 16.) ; " I do nothing* 
of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I 
speak, (John viii. 28.) ; £i For I have not spoken of 
myself ; but the Father which sent me, he gave me 
a commandment what I should say, and what I 
should speak/' (John xii. 49.) In his character of 
Servant and Messenger of God, receiving his in- 
structions and authority from the Father, he knew 
not " that day and that hour/' inasmuch as he was 
not commissioned to reveal it *. 

* Nearly allied to this is the explanation of Macknight, of 
which he probably borrowed the hint from Poli Synop. viz. 
" The word ot$ev here seems to have the force of the Hebrew 
" conjunction hiphil, which in verbs denoting action, makes 
" that action, whatever it is, pass to another. Wherefore nhu, 
<e which properly signifies, / know, used in the sense of the 
" conjunction hiphil, signifies, 1 make another to know, I 
" declare. The word has this meaning without dispute, 1 Cor. 
" ii. 2. ' I determined, t\,hva.i t to know nothing among you, but 
" Jesus Christ, and him crucified;' i. e. I determined to make 
" known, to preach nothing, but Jesus Christ. So, likewise, 
" in the text, ' But of that day and that hour, none maketh 
" you to know,' none hath power to make you know it ; just 
" as the phrase, Matt. xx. 23. ' is not mine to give/ signifies, 
*' ' is not in my power to give:' ' — no, not the angels, nei- 
" ther the Son, but the Father/ Neither man nor angel, nor 
" even the Son himself, can reveal the day and hour of the 
" destruction of Jerusalem to you ; because the Father hath 
" determined that it should not be revealed," Harmony, sect. 
123. It is some confirmation of this, that such an hiphil sense 
of verbs is not unexampled in the New Testament. Glass, 
Phil, Sac. p. 252. Gerard's Institutes of Bihl. Crit, No. 906. 



268 Divine Attributes ascribed to Christ, [chap. v. 

Secondly, An exposition, somewhat different from 
the former, is embraced by great and venerable 
names, according to which the passage in question 
is referred solely to the human nature of our Lord. 
Though, as Son of God he was omniscient, as Son 
of Man he was not so ; and in reference to his 
human nature it is said that " he increased in wis- 
dom," (Luke ii. 52.) which cannot, without a con- 
tradiction, be said of him as he was God,, and there- 
fore it must alone apply to his human nature. In 
the same manner, the Man Christ was ignorant of 
" that day and hour/' though nothing was unknown 
to the divine Logos. " It is one thing/' says Dr. 
Lightfoot, " to understand the Son of God barely 
ee and abstractly for the second Person in the 
(S Holy Trinity ; another to understand him for the 
" Messias, or the second Person incarnate. To say 
<e that the second Person in the Trinity knows not 
<c something, is blasphemous ; to say so of the 
" Messias is not so, who nevertheless was the same 
ec with the second Person in the Trinity. For 
ef although the second Person, abstractly consi- 
" dered according to his mere Deity, was co-equal 
" with the Father co-omnipotent, co-omniscient, 
te co-eternal with him, &c. Yet Messias, who was 
" God-Man, considered as Messias, was a servant 
" and messenger of the Father, and received com- 
" mands and authority from the Father. 5 ' This, 

Macknight's PreU Ess. IV. No. 7. See Stackhouse, History of 
the Bible, lib. viii. cap. iv. 



chap, v.] a Proof of his Divinity. 269 

though it has been stigmatized as mere jargon, is 
in my judgment, an admirable description of the 
two-fold nature of Christ, from the pen of one 
among the many learned and profound divines who 
have adorned, and continue to adorn, the Establish- 
ment. We believe, not only that Christ was God, 
but also that he was perfect Man, of a reasonable 
soul and human flesh subsisting : hence, that which 
is predicated of the one nature, may not be pre- 
dicate of the other ; and the Messias might not 
know that which was apparent to his Deity. 

If it be pretended that the Son of God, as such, 
and every other Person is excluded, because of the 
words " my Father only," as recorded by St. Mat- 
thew, we answer, that the exclusive term " only," 
is not to be so strictly interpreted as to exclude 
what essentially belongs to the Godhead. It is said, 
Revel, xix. 12. that the Son " had a name written, 
that no man no one) knew, but he himself," 

from which it is not reasonable to infer that the 
Father was ignorant of that " name." Equally 
unjustifiable would it be to infer from the words 
above cited, that Jesus, in his divine nature, was 
ignorant of " that day." In Acts i. 7. he says, 
after his resurrection, t( It is not for you to know 
the times, or the seasons, which the Father hath 
put in his own power," which cannot imply that the 
Son was ignorant of the times and seasons, but that 
these were the secret things belonging unto God, 
and making no part of the revelation he was commis- 
sioned to disclose. Such expressions are not to be 



270 Divine Attributes ascribed to Christ , [chap. v. 

interpreted too rigorously, for this unanswerable 
reason, that, by taking them in the most exclusive 
sense, some texts would be made to exclude the 
Father, which cannot for a moment be imagined to 
be really intended by the writers. 

The Arian may object, that the Son is here placed 
after the angels, by a gradation which requires us to 
understand the text of a nature superior to angels, 
but inferior to the Father, from which it may be 
inferred that Christ was a secondary or inferior 
God; the answer, in the words of Dr. Waterland, 
is, " that the Son of Man's union with the Logos, 
" and the particular concern the Son of Man has 
" in the last judgment, are sufficient to account 
" for the supposed climax or gradation 

It is objected by Socinians, that these interpreta- 
tions of Mark xiii. 32. charge our Saviour, if not 
with direct falsehood, at least with criminal evasion ; 
since he could not say with truth and sincerity, that 
he was ignorant of the day, if he knew it in any 
capacity ; as it cannot be denied that man is immor- 
tal, so long as he is, in any respect, immortal. The 
answer to this is, that as it may truly be said of the 
body of man that it is not immortal, though the 
soul is, so it may, with equal truth be said, that the 
» Son of Man was ignorant of some things, though 
the Son of God knew every thing. It is not, then, 
inconsistent with truth and sincerity for our Lord to 
deny that he knew what he really did know in one 



* Seventh Sermon at Lady Moyer's, p. 271. 



chap. v.J a Proof of his Divinity. 271 

capacity, while he was ignorant of it in another. 
Thus, in one place he says, " Now I am no more 
in the world/' (John xvii. 11.); and in another, 
" Ye have the poor always with you, but me ye 
have not always," (Matt. xxvi. 11.) ; yet, on another 
occasion, he says, " Lo, I am with you always," 
(Matt, xxviii. 20.) ; and again, " If any man love 
me— my Father will love him, and We will come 
unto him, and make our abode with him," (John 
xiv. 23.) From hence, we see that our Lord might, 
without any breach of sincerity, deny that of him- 
self considered in one capacity, which he could not 
have denied in another. There was no equivocation 
in his denying the knowledge of " that day and that 
hour," since, with respect to his human nature, it 
was most true ; and that he designed it to refer 
alone to his human nature, is probable, because he 
does not say the Son of God was ignorant of that 
day, but the Son, meaning the Son of Man, as 
appears from the context, (Matt. xxiv. 37. 39. Mark 
xiii. 26. 34.)— Thus, Mark xiii. 32. which, at first 
sight, may seem to favour the Unitarian hypothesis, 
is capable of a rational and unforced interpretation, 
consistently with the orthodox faith. Nay, more ; 
in an address from the pulpit, to my own congrega- 
tion, 1 should not scruple to adduce it in confirmation 
of the Athanasian Creed. I should argue that Christ 
was demonstrated from other texts to be omnipotent, 
eternal, and omniscient ; and as he is here repre- 
sented to be ignorant of a certain thing, it could not 
be spoken of him as God. In what capacity, then, 



272 Divine Attributes ascribed to Christ, [chap. v. 

can it be spoken of him except in that of the 
Messias who should come into the world ? Whence 
it follows, that the text contains an intimation of the 
two natures, the human and divine, united in our 
Saviour, who was Perfect Man as well as Perfect 
God * 

Another objection is taken from the beginning of 
the Revelations ; " the revelation of Jesus Christ, 
which God gave unto him/' &c. which, being 
spoken of him after his ascension, may seem to 
imply some inferiority of knowledge. But we are 
to recollect that all the communications of God to 
man, are in and by Jesus Christ, who is the revealer 
and interpreter of the Father's will. This is a part 
of his mediatorial and delegated office, which will 
continue till the grand consummation of all things, 
when he shall " deliver up the kingdom to God, 
even the Father," (1 Cor. xv. 24.) and " when all 
things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the 
Son also himself be subject unto him that put all 
things under him, that God may be all in all/' 

* For illustration of Mark xiii. 32. the reader may consult 
Bisterfeld, De Uno Deo, lib. i. sect. ii. cap. ix. Waterland, 
Sermon VII. at Lady Moyers. Kidder, Dem. P. II. p. 59. 
Wardlaw, Unitar. p. 320. Vaillant, On the Trinity, p. 1. Simp- 
son's Plea, p. 54. Veneer, On Thirty-nine Art. vol. i. p. 54. 
Rennell s Animadversions, p. 44. For the opinions of the 
Fathers, see Suicer, Thesaur. torn. ii. p. 164 — 170. Petavius, 
Dogmat. Thcol. lib. i. cap. i. and ii. Dr. Clarke, (Script. Doct. 
No. 773 ) has rather disingenuously cited Irenaeus, whose ortho- 
doxy is excellently defended by Bull, Def. Fid, Nic. sect. ii. 
cap. v. § 8. and Waterland, Defence, Qu. 7. 



chap, v.] a Proof of his Divinity. 273 

(1 Cor. xv. 28.) ; that is, when all things shall be 
consummated, and even death, the last enemy, shall 
be destroyed, then shall the Son deliver up his 
mediatorial kingdom to the Father, and the Triune 
God shall be all in ail for ever and ever *. The 
sentiment in the beginning of the Revelations cor- 
responds with many others, referring to Christ, as 
the delegate of the Father, from whom, in his me- 
diatorial capacity, he derived all his authority. 

Some other texts have been marshalled against 
us, to all of which one general answer may suffice. 
Those passages in which Jesus speaks of his being 
sent from the Father, of doing, not his own, but 
the Father's will, of speaking only what he was 
taught, of acting in obedience to him that sent 
him, and the like, are, for the most part, to be 
referred to the delegated office which he exercises 
in the benign, but mysterious scheme of human 
redemption. If some of these, or other similar 
passages appear to be referable to his divine nature, 
they can only relate to the subordination of the Son, 
as a Son, in respect to the Father, as a Father. 
By reason of his divine paternity, the Father is 
entitled to a certain priority and pre-eminence, 
which we acknowledge with humility, and ascribe 
to him with reverence. On the orthodox system, 
the whole Bible becomes uniformly consistent ; 
those texts which paint the suffering man Christ 

* Doederlein, Institutio Theol. Christ, § 105. obs. \. and 
Whitby on 1 Cor. xv. 28. 

T 



274 Divine Attributes ascribed to Christ, [chap. v. 

Jesus relate to his humanity ; those which speak of 
his acting in obedience to the Father refer to his 
mediatorial office ; and those which touch upon his 
subordination in the divine nature assert the pre- 
eminent glory of the Father as the fountain of 
Deity. On this system, the apparent contradictions 
of the sacred Writings are easily reconciled, which, 
on any other scheme, are replete with inconsistency 
and inexplicable difficulties. 

OMNIPRESENCE. 

XXVIII. It is proved in the next chapter, that 
Christ is the efficient Creator and Preserver of 
the universe, which implies omnipresence. It is 
likewise shewn, in a subsequent chapter, that divine 
worship is to be directed to Christ, from which his 
omnipresence may be inferred. Divine worship 
clearly implies that the Being adored, hears our 
supplications and prayers ; and as these are offered 
up in all places and in all ages, he who is addressed 
in them, must be omnipresent and eternal.— It is 
sufficient merely to hint at these arguments ; for it 
is my design to adopt in each portion of this work, 
as much as possible, a separate and independent 
line of proof; let us, then, inquire into the direct 
testimonies to the omnipresence of Christ. 

XXIX. Matt, xviii. 20. " For where two or 
three are gathered together in my name, there am 
I in the midst of them." This is an unambiguous 
declaration of our Lord's omnipresence, Wherever 



chap, v.] a Proof of his Divinity. 275 

two or three are assembled together on account of 
Christ and his religion, he will be amongst them by 
his special, though invisible presence *. This re- 
sembles the assurance given by the God of Israel to 
Moses, " In all places where I record my name, I 
will come unto thee, and I will bless thee," (Exod. 
xx. 24.) ; and no being could make either declara- 
tion, except he were present in all places. There 
is not the slightest evidence for limiting the promise 
to the apostolic age ; the expressions are entirely 
unrestricted ; but if this Unitarian gloss were even 
admitted, the passage would still form an unques- 
tionable testimony to the ubiquity of Christ ; for 
none but an omnipresent Being could be present, 
during the apostolic age, wherever and whenever 
two or three were gathered together. See the next 
section. 

XXX. Matt, xxviii. 20. " And lo, I am with 

YOU ALWAY, EVEN UNTO THE END OF THE WORLD." 

Who but an omnipresent Being could, in such 
express language, declare his continued presence 
with his disciples ? 

We are told that the words recorded by the 
Evangelist, may be rendered with Dr. Campbell, 
" I am with you always, even to the conclusion of 
this state," or " to the end of the age," namely, the 
end of the Jewish dispensation by the destruction 

* «* — there am I in the midst of them!" " Ibi ego pra- 
sens ero et adero auxilio meo." Schleusner, fumf. " Meo 
numine, meo auxilio iis adero." Kuinoel. 

T 2 



276 Divine Attributes ascribed to Christ, [chap. v. 

of Jerusalem, and of the temple. C H a-wrixtix toG 8 
uluyos, it is acknowledged, may admit this transla- 
tion, which, however, in no way assists the Unitarian 
cause : for if Christ, after his ascension, was pre- 
sent with his disciples to the end of the age, as it 
could not be in his human nature, it must have been 
by his superintending providence, the influence of 
his spirit, and the miraculous operations of his 
power, which certainly imply divinity *. Besides, 
" if Christ was every where present, at all times, 
" with all his disciples dispersed through different 
" parts of the world during that age, he must be 
" omnipresent in all ages. There can be no inter- 
" mission of an infinite attribute f 

Allowing that the words may, by themselves, be 
translated i( to the end of the age/' I, nevertheless, 
am of opinion that, in this place, it is not the pro- 
per translation, or, at least, that they refer, not to 
the destruction of Jerusalem, but to the end of the 
world. The words, 7rao-«? rug %^ag 3 " at all times/' 
strongly opposes the notion of limiting the promise 
to the Jewish dispensation. The phrase, i o-wT&ua 

* Unitarians assert that Jesus was often personally present 
with his disciples after his ascension, for proof of which refer- 
ence is made to Acts vii. 55. ix. 3. xxii. 17 — 21. The first 
relates to the martyrdom of Stephen, who " looked up into 
heaven, and saw Jesus at the right hand of God ;" the second 
is the conversion of Paul, when the men saw no man, (v. 7.); 
and the last relates what happened in a trance. Law's 
Defence, p. 98. 

f Bishop of St. David s Brief Memorial, p. 23. See Ward- 
law, Discourses, p. 92. 



chap, v.] a Proof of his Divinity. 277 

tov ocluvog, occurs six times, Matt. xiii. 39, 40. 49. 
xxiv. 3. xxviii. 20. Heb. ix. 26. in the three first of 
which it evidently means the end of the world; 
and this seems to be the meaning here, as Christ's 
presence with his disciples was equally necessary 
after the destruction of Jerusalem as before it. In 
fact, not a shadow of proof is given for putting any 
limitation of time to the promise of Christ, except 
the necessity of propping up the baseless fabric of 
Socinianism ; and we may, in the confidence of 
faith, rely upon the enlivening and consolatory pro- 
mise of our Saviour, that he will be present to 
comfort and support his true disciples to the final 
dissolution of the world * 

XXXI. John iii. 13. M No man hath ascended 
up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, 
even the Son of Man, who is in heaven." He who 
was in heaven while speaking to the Jews upon 
earth, cannot be circumscribed within local limits, 
and must, therefore, be omnipresent. This text is 
vindicated, chap. iii. sect. iv. p. 104. 

XXXII. Ephes. i. 23. " — the church, which 
is his body, the fulness of him that fiileth all in all." 
The context shews beyond a doubt, that this is 
spoken of Christ, who here is said to " fill all in all/' 

* See Hammond and Doddridge on the place. The phrase 
tlvoci fierce nvo; denotes alicui adesse, juvare aliquem, res alicujus 
curare, Rosenmiiller. Schleusner, sl^l. 20. — psS' l^m per com- 
munication em complectitur etiam subsecuturos. SeeKuinoeL 



278 Divine Attributes ascribed to Christ, [chap. v. 

or rather, " filleth all with all/' as the original may 
be rendered ; that is, God hath constituted Christ 
the head of the church, " which is his body, and 
" as such, the fulness, the perfection, or completion 
" of Christ, who filleth all the members of this his 
" spiritual body, with all spiritual and heavenly 
" blessings The Being* who can do this must 
be present every where and omnipotent. 

XXXIII. Ephes. iv. 10. " — that He (i. e. 
Christ) might fill all things f So in Col. iii. 11. 
" but Christ is all and in all." If our Lord fill 
all, both Jews and Gentiles, and if he be all and in 
all, he clearly must be omnipresent. These cha- 
racters, moreover, belong only to the true God. It 
is God " which worketh all in all/' (1 Cor. xii. 6.) ; 
" Do not I fill heaven and earth ? saith the Lord/' 
(Jer. xxiii. 24.) Whence the proper deity of Christ 
is the necessary consequence. 

XXXIV. Col. 1. 17. " Bv HIM ALL THINGS CON- 
SIST." This short sentence implies that our Lord's 
presence extends to every part of the creation ; to 

* Dr. Chandler's Paraphrase, to, vravra, \v it»<r\ t " omnes 
homines omnibus, scil. bonis," Rosenmiiller. " All with all," 
Macknight. Schleusner renders it, " Qui omnes communi 
imperio complectitur et regit/' (?rX>jpo<y. 10.) which few will 
approve. 

t — Jill all things. " Ut omnes repleret bonis, ut cujusvis 
nationis et conditionis homines benefieiis ornaret, et dona dis- 
tribueret. Ta iravra, neutrum pro masc. ut ssepe in his libris." 
Rosenmiiller, Scholia in loc. 



chap, v.] a Proof of his Divinity. 279 

every being and system in the universe: a most 
striking and emphatical description of the omni- 
presence of God the Son. 

OMNIPOTENCE. 

XXXV. There are several acts and operations 
ascribed to Christ, which imply omnipotent power- 
So numerous are the passages from which this may 
be inferred, that to attempt an enumeration of them 
all, would lead into a length of discussion dispro- 
portionate to the limits of this work ; it will, there- 
fore, be advisable, as conducing to the force and 
perspicuity of the argument, to make a selection, 
and arrange them under separate heads. If, then, 
it can be proved that Jesus Christ sends the Spirit, 
pardons sins, hears and grants prayers, gives power, 
governs the world, will raise the dead, and will 
judge the world at the last day, his omnipotence 
will be unanswerably demonstrated. Without pre- 
tending to exhaust the subject, scriptural evidence 
may be produced abundantly sufficient to prove that 
each of these acts of almighty power are ascribed to 
the Son of God. 

Christ sends the Spirit. 

XXXVI. John xv. 26. " When the Comforter 
is come, whom 1 will send unto you from the 
Father, even the Spirit of truth, &c*." That the 

* The original word, wc^ax^To?, is variously rendered, Com- 
forter, Advocate, Exhorter, Monitor, Doctor. See Suicer, 
Thesaur. in voc. Wetstein, Rosenmiiller, Campbell, Hammond, 



280 Divine Attributes ascribed to Christ, [chap, v 

Comforter here denotes the Holy Spirit, it is im- 
possible to dispute ; but can the miraculous gifts, 
and the ordinary influences of the Spirit upon the 
heart, be communicated by a being not possessed of 
boundless power ? It may, perhaps, be thought a 
begging of the question to assume the personal and 
essential deity of the Holy Ghost, but even according 
to the Unitarian notion of its being a mere in- 
fluence or operation, it is an influence or operation 
proceeding from the Supreme Being, and the sender 
of it must be God. This conclusion becomes re- 
sistless, when we read the declarations of our Lord, 
" I will pray the Father, and he shall give you 
another Comforter," and " the Comforter, which is 
the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in 
my name/' (John xiv. 16. 26.) ; from which we 
learn that the sender is God, yet Jesus Christ says, 
he will send the Comforter, and therefore Jesus 
Christ is God. 

John xx. 22. " And when he had said this, he 
breathed on them, and said unto them, Receive ye 
the Holy Ghost." I accede to the opinion of those 
who believe that he did not then give them the 
Holy Ghost, but that his breathing on them was 
a symbolical action to confirm his former promise 
that they should receive it, as they did soon after- 
wards, Acts i. 4. ii. 1 *. Be this as it may, whether 

and Kuinoel, on John xiv. 16. and Tittman, Melttem. Sac. 
p. 520. 

* So Pearce, Hammond, Doddridge, Rosenmiiller, Kuinoel, 
Tittman, &c. *«/3iti is put for J^etrSe, Glass, Phil. Sac, p. 286. 



chap, v.] a Proof of his Divinity. 281 

it be understood as an actual communication of the 
Spirit, or only a promise of so doing, our Lord, in 
saying, " Receive ye the Holy Ghost/' assumes to 
himself the power of sending it, which is equivalent 
to a claim of omnipotence. 

Matt. iii. 11. " I baptize you with water, says 
John the Baptist, but he that cometh after me, shall 

BAPTIZE YOU WITH THE HoLY GhOST AND WITH FIRE:" 

so Luke iii. 16. John i. 33. It would be foreign from 
my purpose to recount the various opinions of com- 
mentators in regard to this passage : one thing is 
clear, that the gift of the Spirit is here attributed 
to our Saviour, for " to baptize," is evidently put 
figuratively for to bestow, to supply : hence it forms 
a strong testimony to our position. 

Luke xxiv. 49. " And behold, I send the promise 
of my Father upon you," &c. It is allowed on all 
hands, that by " the promise of his Father," Jesus 
means the gift of the Holy Ghost, which was pro- 
mised by the Father, Matt. x. 20. John xiv. 16. 26. 
Acts i. 4, 5. ii. 32, 33. and by declaring that He 
would send it, he places himself upon an equality 
with God. This explanation is confirmed by the 
following text. 

The Holy Ghost means the influence of the Holy Spirit. " Alii 
per itnvpu. uyiov intelligunt dona Spiritus Sancti, alii novam 
mentis indolem, alii pleniorem et accuratiorem religionis cog- 
nitionem, sed intelligenda est vis divina adjutrix, quae Apostolos 
reddebat idoneos ad munus recte gerendum." Kuinoel in loc. 
The absence of the article proves that it means a divine in- 
fluence. See Middleton, Doct. of the Gr. Art, in loc* 



282 Divine Attributes ascribed to Christ, [chap. v. 

Acts ii. 33. " Therefore being by the right hand 
of God exalted, and having received of the Father 
the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth 
this, which ye now see and hear ?' namely, the 
miraculous operation of the Holy Spirit. When 
we consider the descent of the Holy Ghost in all its 
bearings, the prophecies by which it was foretold, 
the promise of it previously made to the disciples, 
and the astonishing effects which followed, we are 
necessarily led to infer that He by whom it was 
" shed forth/' must be almighty. Again, this effu- 
sion of the Spirit is said by St. Peter to be the 
fulfilment of a prophecy of Joel, " And it shall 
come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour 
out of my Spirit upon all flesh," &c. (v. 17.) But it 
was Jesus Christ, the same Apostle tells us, who 
" shed forth" the Spirit ; wherefore it follows in- 
controvertibly that Jesus Christ is God. — if this 
Scripture be compared with another, where St. Paul 
says, God " saved us by the washing of regenera- 
tion, and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which he 
shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our 
Saviour," (Tit. iii. 5, 6.) it will be evident that the 
Person who " sheds forth" the Spirit is God. Now, 
as this same act is expressly ascribed, to Jesus, it 
would be irrational to doubt his being essentially 
the same with God the Father. 

The effusion of the Spirit is never attributed to 
a mere man. We read, indeed, that the Apostles 
" laid their hands on them, and they received the 
Holy Ghost/' (Acts viii. 17.) ; but it is stated just 



chap, v.] a Proof of his Divinity. 283 

before that " they prayed for them, that they might 
receive the Holy Ghost/' which precludes the possi- 
bility of imagining that the Spirit was given by their 
own power *. So, likewise, in the case of Ananias, 
who laid his hands upon Saul, saying, " the Lord, 
even Jesus, hath sent me, that thou mightest re- 
ceive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost," 
(Acts ix. 17.) in which expressions he ascribes the 
whole act and deed to Jesus. The same observa- 
tion is applicable to every instance recorded in the 
Scriptures ; the Apostles were merely instruments, 
and they attributed all the efficacy consequent upon 
the imposition of their hands, to the Lord and 
Saviour of mankind. Spiritual grace continues to 
be vouchsafed in the administration of the Sacra- 
ments by apostolically ordained ministers ; but it 
would be impiety in them to regard themselves in 
any other light than the instituted medium of com- 
munication. 

On the contrary, the gift of the Spirit is ascribed 
to Jesus so entirely, so unreservedly, that it were 
unreasonable to doubt his divine sovereignty. In 
confirmation of this, let me request the reader's 
attention to two observations resulting from the texts 
reviewed in this section. First, the effusion of the 
Holy Ghost is an act which implies almighty power; 

* " I am apt to think," says Lord Barrington, " that, when- 
ever the Apostles conferred such gifts of the Holy Ghost as 
they could impart, they always prayed that those to whom 
they were going to impart them, might receive tiiern." Mis- 
cellanea Sacra, vol. i. p. 25l>. Loud. 1770. 



284 Divine Attributes ascribed to Christ, [chap. v. 

the ordinary influences, as well as the miraculous 
operations of the Spirit, can only proceed from the 
Godhead, and he who, like our Saviour, promises 
to bestow them, and affirms that he actually does 
communicate them, must either participate in the 
Godhead, or else he is chargeable with arrogant 
and blasphemous presumption. As the latter cannot 
be imputed to the meek, the humble, the pious 
Jesus, we are compelled to adopt the other alter- 
native, and to confess that he is the omnipotent 
Son of an omnipotent Father. Secondly, the ef- 
fusion of the Spirit is indifferently ascribed to Christ 
and to God. It is the Spirit of the Father, and the 
Spirit of the Son ; it is the Comforter whom the 
Father will send, and whom the Son will send, 
(John xiv. 26. — xv. 28.) ; its miraculous operations 
were shed forth by the Son and by the Father, 
(Acts ii. 17. 33. Tit. iii. 5, 6.) This equal ascrip- 
tion to the Father and the Son of an act, in itself 
implying absolute power, plainly infers identity of 
nature *. 

Christ pardons Sins. 

XXXVII. Matt. ix. 2—6. " They brought to 
him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed : and 

* " Quorriam Spiritus dicitur mitti modo a Patre, niodo a 
Filio, itemque proficisci a Patre, et quidem eo concilio, lit 
illustretur nomen Patris et Filii, patet evideuter, potestque inde 
satis certo colligi, locum habere conjunctionem arctissimani 
inter Patrem, Filium, et sanctum Spiritum, ut operis et con- 
siliorum, ita quoque naturae." Tittman, Meletem. Sac. in Jok. 
p. 571. see also p. 525. of the same valuable work. 



chap, v.] a Proof of his Divinity. 285 

Jesus, seeing- their faith, said unto the sick of the 
palsy ; Son, be of good cheer ; thy sins be for- 
given thee. And behold, certain of the scribes 
said within themselves, This man blasphemeth. And 
Jesus, knowing- their thoughts, said, Wherefore 
think ye evil in your hearts ? For whether is it 
easier to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee ; or to say, 
Arise and walk ? But that ye may know that the Son 

Of Man HATH POWER ON EARTH TO FORGIVE SINS, 

(then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take 
up thy bed, and go unto thine house/' Some ad- 
ditional circumstances are related by St. Luke v. 18. 
and Mark ii. 3. which it is unnecessary to notice. 
Some commentators suppose that Jesus here speaks 
not of the remission of the eternal punishment, but 
of the temporal punishment, of sin. I cannot but 
deem this interpretation unfounded; because, First, 
If diseases and other afflictions are ever the tem- 
poral punishment of sin, and they are sometimes so 
represented in Scripture, to remove the punishment 
is, in effect, to forgive the sin, which was the cause 
of that punishment. Secondly, The whole story 
leads us to believe that healing the disease implied 
the forgiving the sins of the sick of the palsy. 
This may be inferred from our Lord's words, 
" Whether is it easier to say, Thy sins be forgiven 
thee ; or to say, Arise and walk ?" evidently repre- 
senting these two things as equivalent; and therefore 
by healing the disease, he forgave the sin which 
occasioned it. Thirdly, The scribes and Pharisees 
reasoned, " Who is this which speaketh blasphe- 



286 Divine Attributes ascribed to Christ, [chap. v. 

mies ? Who can forgive sins but God alone ?" (Luke 
v. 21.) This, 1 think, cannot refer to the miracle 
of healing alone ; in that there could be no blas- 
phemy ; they must then have understood our Lord 
to mean remission of sins in the highest sense, and 
they consequently accused him of blasphemy, as 
arrogating a power that belongs only to God. And 
if Jesus did not partake the divine Nature, the 
accusation would have been substantially true. 
Fourthly, Though this charge of blasphemy was 
founded upon the belief that Jesus assumed the 
power of forgiving the man's sins, our Lord does 
not tell them that their charge was founded on mis- 
take, which it is likely he would have done, had 
they mistaken his meaning ; his language, on the 
contrary, seems to imply that in healing the disease, 
the penalty of the sin, he forgave the sin itself. 
He does not deny that God alone can forgive sins ; 
he does not say that this power was delegated 
to him ; he plainly asserts that " the Son of Man 
hath power upon earth to forgive sins/' and in 
attestation of this power, he performs the miracle 
of healing upon the paralytic. In this view, the 
passage clearly proves that Christ forgives sins. 

Luke vii. 48, " And he said unto her, thy sins 
are forgiven." These were our Saviour's words 
to the penitent woman, who " stood at his feet, 
behind him, weeping, as he sat at meat in the Pha- 
risee's house;" and the interesting narrative, of 
which they make a part, forms an incontestable 
instance of our Lord's exercising almighty power 



chap, v.] a Proof of his Divinity. 281 

by the forgiveness of sins. The guests who sat at 
meat with him were astonished,, and " began to say 
within themselves, Who is this that forgiveth sins 
also ?" And Jesus said to the woman, Thy faith 
hath saved thee, go in peace. " 

Luke xxiii. 43. " To-day shalt thou be with me 
in Paradise/' was the reply of our blessed Lord, to 
the malefactor upon the cross, who said unto Jesus, 
" Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy 
kingdom." " A strange discourse upon the cross !" 
says Dr. Jenkins, " To speak of kingdoms, and 
" promise Paradise under so much infamy and tor- 
" ment ! That one should have the faith to ask, and 
" the other the power to promise so great things in 
" that condition ! Who could have had the courage 
" to promise so much upon the cross, but he who 
" was able to perform it * ?" The pardon of sin 
was included in the assurance given of being with 
the Lord in Paradise. It was a response manifest- 
ing at once the tenderness of divine mercy, and the 
consciousness of almighty power, which alone could 
realize the promised felicity f . 

* The Reasonableness and Certainty of the Christian Reli- 
gion, P. II. cap. xii. p. 235. 

f By Paradise is meant the region or receptacle of departed 
souls where they remain till the general resurrection, as is evi- 
dent from this ? that our Lord was not in heaven till his ascen- 
sion, and consequently the place his soul was in during the 
time from his death to his resurrection, was Hades, here called 
Paradise, i. e. the region of departed spirits. In this region, 
or Hades, there is, it seems, a distinction between the good 
and bad, as may be inferred from this passage, and from the 



288 Divine Attributes ascribed to Christ, [chap, v. 

Col. iii. 13. " Forgiving one another, if any man 
have a quarrel against any ; even as Christ for- 
gave you, so do ye." The chief part of those to 
whom this Epistle was addressed were Gentile con- 
verts, and as they had committed no personal offence 
against Christ, what he forgave them must have 
been sin, which, being a violation of the laws of 
God, can alone be forgiven by the Supreme Being. 
It is in vain to allege, that Christ is said to pardon 
the Colossian converts, because he was commis- 
sioned to declare the forgiveness of repentant sin- 
ners ; for, on that supposition, the parallel stated in 
the text is completely destroyed. Whereas the 
whole force of the comparison lies in this, that the 
Colossians were to forgive each other's trespasses, 
in the same way as Christ forgave theirs. Unless 
Christ forgave their sins, the ground of the parallel 
is subverted. Nor is it material to the argument 
founded upon this text, how Christ forgave the con- 
verts of Colosse, (though I have no doubt it was by 
laying down his life for the remission of sins); we 
are only at present concerned with the fact that 
forgiveness of sins is here ascribed to Jesus Christ *. 

Again, forgiveness on his part, implies a trespass 
committed against Him on their part. But, as Gen- 
tile converts, they could have done no personal 

parable of the rich man and Luzarus. See my note to Prov. 
xv. 11. and the authors there referred to, particularly Bishop 
Bull's Third Sermon in his English works. Campbell, PreL 
Diss. VI. P. II. § 19. Hales, New Analysis, vol. ii. p. 40. 

* See Schleusner, ya^o^oa. 4. 



chap, v.] a Proof of his Divinity. 289 

injury to Christ, and they could only have offended 
him by sin ; but how could they trespass against 
Him whom they had never seen, with whom they 
had no intercourse, and that by sin, which is an 
offence against God, unless He were God, to whom 
all creatures are answerable for their conduct? 
This conclusion is strengthened by another con- 
sideration. In Ephes. iv. 32. there is a passage 
very much resembling the one under examination. 
" Be ye kind one to another, tender-hearted, for- 
giving one another, even as God, for Christ's sake, 
hath forgiven you." The forgiveness of the sins 
of believers is here ascribed to God, and in Colos- 
sians to Christ ; does not this lead us to infer that 
in essence they are one and the same. 

1 Tim. i. 15, 16. " Christ Jesus came into the 
world to save sinners ; of whom I am chief. How- 
beit, for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me 
first Jesus Christ might shew forth all long-suffering^ 
for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe 
on him to life everlasting/' Here St. Paul declares 
he received mercy, that is pardon, in order that he 
might be an example of Christ's long-suffering cle- 
mency in pardoning offenders in all future ages. A 
striking and energetic description of our Lord's 
power and willingness to forgive sins. 

It is worthy of observation, that in all the in- 
stances of forgiving sins ascribed to our Redeemer, 
the power is not merely declaratory. It is never 
said that he is commissioned by superior authority 
to declare the remission of sins, neither is the par- 

U 



290 Divine Attributes ascribed to Christ, [chap. v. 

don conditional, that is, to be granted upon the per- 
formance of certain requisites ; but he pronounces 
fully and absolutely that the sins of the persons, to 
whom his merciful declarations are made, were at 
that moment forgiven. " Thy sins are forgiven/* 
is the commanding and authoritative declaration of 
one who was conscious that he possessed the power 
of pardoning sins ; and as " none can forgive sins 
but God alone/' our Saviour, by assuming this 
power, declared himself to be truly God. 

Christ hears and grants Prayers. 

XXXVIII. John xiv. 13, 14. " Whatsoever ye 
shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the 
Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask 
any thing in my name, I will do it." The argu- 
ment I propose to draw from this promise cannot 
be better expressed than in the words of Whitby 
upon the place. " Christ saith, Whatever ye shall 
" thus ask, I will do, which as it supposes in him 
" omniscience, enabling him to know the requests 
sf of all Christians upon earth, and omnipotence, 
" enabling him to assist them every where in the 
" performance of the greatest works, so must it 
" consequently imply an unity of essence betwixt 
" the Father and the Son, and so the Father is glo- 
" rifled in the Son." The argument will be the 
same if, with some commentators, we limit the pro- 
mise in the text to the Apostles, and to such of their 
prayers only as relate to the advancement of Christ's 
religion ; for the Redeemer, in that case, promises 



chap, v.] a Proof of his Divinity. 291 

what omnipotence alone can perform. In another 
place, our Saviour says, " Whatsoever ye shall ask 
of the Father in my name, he will give it you," 
(John xv. 16.) Thus the Father and the Son will 
equally hear and equally grant the petitions offered 
up in the name of Christ, whence it follows irre- 
sistibly that they must equally possess omniscience 
and omnipotence. 

Christ gives Power, §c. 

XXXIX. Matt. x. 1. " And when he had called 
unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power 
against unclean spirits to cast them out *, and to 
heal all manner of sickness, and all manner of dis- 
ease." (Compare Mark iii. 14, 15. vi. 7.) 

Luke x. 17 — 19. " The seventy returned again 
with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are sub- 
ject unto us through thy name. And he said unto 
them, I beheld Satan as lightning, fall from heaven. 
Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents 
and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy; 
and nothing shall by any means hurt you." (Com- 
pare Luke ix. 1, 2.) It is the prerogative of God 
alone to exercise authority over the spirits, and to 
communicate a power over them to others : yet 
Jesus, by his own absolute power, devolves this 
authority upon his disciples. He does not say that 

* igooaiccv Trvsvpurav, the latter is the genitive of the object, 
and may be rendered, " power over unclean spirits," as E. T. 
margin and Newcome. " He gave them power to expel un- 
clean spirits," Campbell. 

v2 



292 Divine Attributes ascribed to Christ, [chap. v. 

the Father communicates it; he claims the power 
as his own ; he exerts it in his own name ; "I give 
unto you power/' &c. ; an evident exertion of so- 
vereignty which belongs only to the supreme Being. 

From the passages above quoted and referred to, 
it is clear that our Lord communicated to others the 
power of working miracles, which is an unanswer- 
able proof of his omnipotence. Who but God 
Almighty can enable men " to cast out unclean 
spirits, and to heal all manner of sickness, and all 
manner of disease ?" Of all the worthies recorded 
in the Old and New Testament, though some 
wrought miracles themselves, not one ever enabled 
others to do the same. Our blessed Saviour is thus 
distinguished from the most eminent of the prophets 
by bestowing upon others this miraculous power, 
the communication of "which plainly bespeaks his 
divinity * 

Luke xxi. 15. " For I will give you a mouth 
and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be 
able to gainsay nor resist/' This requires no illus- 

* See Maltby, On the Truth of the Christian Religion, 
cap. iv. The only instance that occurs to me of any thing like 
supernatural power being bestowed by a prophet is Elisha's 
asking Elijah for " a double portion of his spirit," 2 Kings 
ii. 9, 10. But not to allege that the meaning of this request is 
very doubtful, (see Poli Synop.) Elijah is not represented as 
bestowing this " double portion of his spirit." He merely 
says, " If thou see me when I am taken from thee, it shall be 
so unto thee ; but if not, it shall not be so to thee ;" which 
implies that the thing prayed for was not in Elijah's disposal 



chap, v.] a Proof of his Divinity. 293 

tration ; it is a plain and unequivocal testimony to 
the plenitude of power inherent in our Redeemer. 

John i. 12. " As many as received him, to them 
gave he power to become the sons of God 
namely, by adoption. No one can give to another 
the power of becoming" an adopted son, but the 
person who adopts him ; and, therefore, if Jesus 
gives us power to become the sons of God, he must 
be really God. The right to this privilege can be 
granted by the Almighty alone, for this right can 
belong to no other ; and since our Lord is described 
as giving " power to become the sons of God," not 
giving it by delegation, but by his own authority, 
he must assuredly be God. This reasoning is fully 
confirmed by the following verse, in which the sons 
of God are said to be " born, not of blood, nor of 
the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of 
God." 

Acts xviii. 9, 10. " Then spake the Lord to Paul 
in the night, by a vision, Be not afraid, but speak, 
and hold not thy peace : for 1 am with thee and no 

MAN SHALL SET ON THEE TO HURT THEE." 

1 Cor. i. 7, 8. (c Waiting for the coming of our 
Lord Jesus Christ, who shall also confirm you 
unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day 
of our Lord Jesus Christ." It is in some degree 
ambiguous whether the pronoun fa, who, in the 
beginning of the eighth verse refers to Christ, the 
immediate antecedent, or to God, in v. 4. The 
latter reference is adopted by Bishop Pearce, Mac- 



294 Divine Attributes ascribed to Christ, [chap. v. 

knight, Rosenmuller, while Locke, Doddridge, &c. 
adopt the former. The reasons for each may be 
seen in Pool's Synopsis *. 

Col. ii. 10. " And ye are complete in him, which 
is the head of all principality and power/' lv 
at™ TrtirXripufAeitoi, more correctly rendered, " ye are 
made complete by him," i. e. ye are furnished by 
Christ with all things necessary to your salvation f . 
A striking description of the abundance of his mercy 
and the vastness of his power. In the next clause, 
the supremacy of Christ over all created beings, is 
strongly asserted. He is " the head of all princi- 
pality and power/' supreme over every order of 
intelligent beings, who exercise any authority and 
power. 

1 John v. 20. " We know that the Son of God 
is come, and hath given us an understanding, that 
we may know," &c. This can scarcely mean only 
the outward communication of knowledge ; it surely 
includes the communication of internal light, of some 
helps and assistances by which the understanding 

* Phil. iv. 13. " I can do all things through Christ, which 
strengtheneth me," cannot be appealed to, as Griesbach ex- 
punges the word " Christ" from his text. 

f " Ye are made complete by him," Mackn. See Hammond 
and Peirce ; " ye are rilled through him," Archbishop Newcome ; 
" estis per eum edocti," Schleusner, wtypu. 4. ; " per ipsum 
vos omnia accepistis (dona) quibus opus est vobis" Rosenmiiller, 
who adds, " Christus, omnis sapientiae fons, omnia vobis sup- 
peditat ad aeternam felicitatem necessaria." See also Poli 
Synop. 



chap, v.] a Proof of his Divinity. 295 

was enlightened and invigorated, more especially as 
iioim*, the word used by the Apostle, sometimes 
denotes the intellectual faculty*. 

Christ governs the World, 

XL. Matt, xxviii. 18. " And Jesus came, and 
spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto 
me in heaven and in earth." This is as plain a 
declaration of our Lord's absolute sovereignty, as it 
is possible for language to express. See chap. ii. 
sect. ii. where the text is vindicated from exceptions. 

Matt. xi. 27. " All things are delivered unto me 
of my Father." 

John iii. 35. " The Father loveth the Son, and 
hath given all things into his hand." 

John v. 19. " What things soever he (the Father) 
doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." 

John xiii. 3. " Jesus, knowing that the Father 
had given all things into his hands." 

John xvii. 2. " As thou hast given him power 
over all flesh." These five texts, I am aware, 
are by some understood with considerable limita- 
tions ; with what justice may reasonably be doubted, 
as no conceivable motive can be assigned, why the 
Evangelists should have used absolute and unlimited 
terms, if they had intended to express a limited 
power. Still, let the expressions be taken even in 

* Schleusner renders it, " dedit nobis intelligentiam, seu 
intelligendi facultatem." See also Parkhurst, Lex, in voc. It 
here signifies, says Bengel, " non solum notitiam, sed faculta- 
tem noscendi." Gnomon in loe. 



296 Divine Attributes ascribed to Christ, [chap. v. 

a restricted sense, I think a candid mind must admit, 
that they attribute to our Saviour an influence and 
authority over the affairs of this world, wholly in- 
compatible with the notion of his being- a mere 
man ? Do they not imply a great deal more ? In 
reading* such declarations is it not natural to infer, 
that the Person, of whom they are spoken, must be 
essentially divine? As to its being said that this 
power is given to Jesus, it is perfectly agreeable to 
the orthodox faith, which regards the Son as God 
of God, as deriving his essence and attributes, by 
an eternal generation, from the Father. 

Acts x. 36. u The word which God sent unto 
the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus 
Christ, (he is Lord of all.") Here Jesus Christ 
is evidently styled " the Lord of all," both of Jews 
and Gentiles ; which can import nothing less than 
his sovereignty over them. 

Rom. xiv. 9. " To this end Christ both died, and 
rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of 
the dead and living or rather, " that he might 
rule over both the dead and the living */' which 
imports that our Saviour's dominion extends as well 

* y.vpuv<rv) is so rendered by Macknight; " that he might 
have dominion over both the dead and the living," Archbishop 
Newcome ; " ut supremum dominium in mortuos pariter ac 
vivos exerceret," Rosenmiiller. " From this passage, and from 
Phil. ii. 10. where those under the earth are said to how the 
knee to Jesus, it may be inferred, that the souls of men at 
death, neither sleep, nor fall into a state of insensibility." 
Macknight. 



hap. v.] a Proof of his Divinity. 297 

over the souls of the dead, till the final consum- 
mation of all things, as over the living. This cor- 
responds with the title given to Jesus of " Lord of 
all/' in another part of this Epistle, ch. x. 12. 
1 Cor. xv. 27. " For he (the Father) hath put 

ALL THINGS UNDER HIS FEET," i. C. the Son's. All 

things are subject to him, with one single exception, 
for the Apostle goes on, " When he saith, All things 
are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted 
which did put all things under him." 

Ephes. i. 20—22. " Which he wrought in Christ, 
when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his 
own right hand in the heavenly places, far above 

ALL PRINCIPALITY, AND POWER, AND MIGHT, AND DO- 
MINION, AND EVERY NAME THAT IS NAMED, NOT ONLY 
IN THIS WORLD, RUT ALSO IN THAT WHICH IS TO COME ; 
AND HATH PUT ALL THINGS UNDER HIS FEET, AND GAVE 
HIM TO BE HEAD OVER ALL THINGS to the church." 

Phil. ii. 10, 11. " That at the name of Jesus 
every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and 
things in earth, and things under the earth : and 
that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ 
is Lord, to the glory of God the Father :" viz. the 
angels in heaven, men on earth, and the souls of 
the dead, are to acknowledge and reverence the 
authority of Jesus; and all mankind are to confess 
that he is " Lord," Lord of all, possessed of sove- 
reign power. 

Col. i. 17. " And he is before all things, and by 
him all things consist." He upholds all things by 
his supreme and uncontrolable power ; correspond- 



298 Divine Attributes ascribed to Christ, [chap. v. 

ing with Heb. i. 3. where the Son is described as 
" upholding all things by the word of his power 

Heb. ii. 5. 8. " For unto the angels he hath not 
put in subjection the world to come — thou didst 

SET HIM (JeSUs) OVER THE WORKS OF THY HANDS ; 
THOU HAST PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS 

feet. For in that he put all in subjection under 

him, HE LEFT NOTHING THAT IS NOT PUT UNDER HIM." 

A clear declaration of Christ's sovereignty f . Nothing 
can be more evident than the Apostle's argument 
requires us to understand these expressions in the 
most universal sense, that the whole creation, ma- 
terial and immaterial, are placed in subjection to 
the government of Christ. 

1 Pet. iii. 22. " Who is gone into heaven, and is 
on the right hand of God ; angels, and authorities, 

AND POWERS, BEING MADE SUBJECT UNTO HIM." Here 

the Apostle declares that the angelic choir, and hu- 
man rulers of every rank and degree, are absolutely 
subjected to the supreme dominion of our Saviour. 

* On Col. i. 17. Krebs says, " awia-rwe h. 1. non solum 
creationis actum ut vulgo hoc verbum interpretantur, sed etiam 
illius actus continuationem et perennitatem indicat. Nolim 
igitur reddere, in quo omnia creata sunt (praesertim cum hoc 
ipsum diserte jam v. 16. dictum sit) sed per quern omnia creata 
sustentantur et consermntur." Ohs. in Nov. Test. p. 334. 

+ The words immediately following, <( But now we see not 
yet all things put under him ;" if they refer to Jesus, which is 
doubtful, must be explained of evil angels and wicked men 
not being yet subject to him, (see Macknight) and may be 
illustrated by 1 Cor. xv. 25. On this verse in Hebrews, Peirce 
ought to be consulted. 



chap, v.] a Proof of his Divinity. 299 

Revel, xi. 15. " The kingdoms of this world are 
become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his 
Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever." 
Here might be quoted several texts analogous to 
this., as Isaiah ix. 7. Daniel ii. 44. vii. 14. Luke i. 33. 
to which it seems sufficient to refer, as ample testi- 
monies have been produced to prove that the whole 
visible and invisible creation is subjected to Jesus 
Christ, who, together with the Father and Holy 
Spirit, rules over it with sovereign power. 

Christ will raise the Dead. * 

XLI. Matt. xxiv. 31. " And he (the Son of 
Man) shall send his angels with a great sound of a 
trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect 
from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the 
other." 

John ii. 19. 21. " Jesus answered and said unto 
them, Destroy this temple, and in three days, I 
will raise it up.— But he spake of the temple of 
his body." (Compare chap. iii. sect, xiv.) 

John v. 21. " For as the Father raiseth up the 
dead, and quickeneth them ; even so the Son 

QUICKENETH WHOM HE WILL." 

John v. 25. " Verily, verily, I say unto you, The 
hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall 
hear the voice of the Son of God ; and they that 
hear shall live." 

John v. 28, 29. " The hour is coming, in the 

which ALL THAT ARE IN THE GRAVES SHALL HEAR HIS 
VOICE, AND SHALL COME FORTH," &C. 

John vi. 39, 40. " And this is the Father's will 



300 Divine Attributes ascribed to Christ, [chap. v. 

which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given 
me, I should lose nothing, but should raise it up 
at the last day. — And this is the will of him that 
sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and 
believeth on him, may have everlasting life, and I 

WILL RAISE HIM UP AT THE LAST DAY." 

John x. 17, 18. " Therefore doth my Father love 
me, because I lay down my life that I might take it 
again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down 
of myself. I have power to lay it down, and 1 have 
power to take it again. This commandment I have 
received of my Father/ 5 This is a strong testimony 
to the omnipotence of Jesus, and must therefore 
be frittered away by the disciples of Unitarianism. 
They tell us the translation should be, " I have au- 
thority to lay it down/' &c. ; and Mr. Wakefield, a 
man of considerable scholastic attainments, goes so 
far as to affirm, that " in all the variety of places 
where " ggous-ia is used, it uniformly means authority, 
u or privilege } or a delegated commission, conferred 
" by some superior ;" an assertion entirely without 
foundation, as appears from Luke xii. 5. Acts i. 7. 
xxvi. 18. Rom. ix. 21. Revel, xx. 6. The scope of 
the passage requires us to understand the word of 
the liberty or power of acting as one pleases. Our 
Lord's laying down his life is given as a reason of 
his Father's love to him, <4 Therefore doth my 
Father love me, because I lay down my life." But 
it could be no reason for the Father's love, unless 
it were a spontaneous surrender of life ; which 
proves, beyond all dispute, that igowia, in the clause, 
" I have power to lay it down," imports a voluntary 



chap, v.] a Proof of his Divinity. 301 

act ; and, by parity of reason, the same word in the 
next clause, " I have power to take it again/' must 
signify that our Lord's resurrection depended upon 
the free and voluntary exercise of his own power. 
Admitting even the gloss, " I have power, i. e. a 
delegated commission, to lay down my life, and to 
resume it Jesus, as a man, could not raise himself 
when he was dead. His resumption of life, his 
" power to take it again," implies a personal exist- 
ence distinct from his human nature, and capable 
of executing the commission to resuscitate his dead 
body. To speak of the dead raising themselves is 
a palpable contradiction. A mere man cannot re- 
ceive authority " to take his life again," for with 
the extinction of life, all agency must inevitably 
cease. If Jesus, then, had a delegated commission 
to resume life, he must have had an actual existence 
in another nature, when his human nature had ex- 
pired. Hence, it is impossible for Unitarian sub- 
tiSty to invalidate the evidence which this text bears 
to our Lord's omnipotence # . 

The clause, " this commandment I have received 
of my Father," either relates to Jesus in his media- 
torial capacity, or to his divine origination from the 

* I refer with pleasure to the excellent defence of the re- 
ceived translation of this passage by Dr. Magee, Post, to App. 
p. 52. et seq. The Unitarian Version, " I have authority to 
receive it again," taking Xct@uv in a passive sense, scarcely 
deserves a serious refutation. As tj&jam, in the preceding 
clause, can only be understood actively, so must hxpgccw in 
the latter. On this verse, see Wolfius, Whitby, Rosenmiiller, 
and particularly Tittman. 



303 Divine Attributes ascribed to Christ, [chap. v. 

Father; and may mean, as Bishop Pearce explains 
it, that he had received a commandment to say 
what he had just been delivering: as his death 
and resurrection were a part of the grand scheme 
of redemption, ordained before the foundation of 
the world, it is more probable that the u command- 
ment," here mentioned, denotes his dying for our 
offences, and rising again for our justification, ac- 
cording to the eternal counsels of the Father *. 

John x. 27, 28. " My sheep hear my voice, and 
I know them, and they follow me : and I give unto 

THEM ETERNAL LIFE." 

John xi. 25. " Jesus said unto her, I am the re- 
surrection and the life that is, I am the author 
of the resurrection and eternal life; I have the 
power to raise the dead, and to give them life. 

Phil. iii. 21. " The Lord Jesus Christ, who shall 
change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like 
unto his glorious body, according to the mighty 
working whereby he is able even to subdue all things 
unto himself." 

Such is the incontrovertible evidence to the fact, 
that Christ will raise the dead : is it not reasonable, 
then, to infer his omnipotence? To raise the in- 
numerable multitudes of human beings, who have 
lived upon the earth, to collect and re-animate their 

* " Unde patet, consilium mortis Christi fuisse praeter modum 
magnum, sapientissimum, hominibusque longe saluberrimum ; 
fuit enim Patris consilium et decretum benevolum." Tittman, 
Melettm. Sac. in Joh. p. 388. Schleusner renders the clause, 
" hoc premium virtu tis meae mihi est a Deo promissum." 
Voc. hrohv;. 5. 



chap, v.] a Proof of his Divinity. SOS 

scattered relics, and to present each in his own 
order before the tribunal of eternal justice, appears 
to require a power equal to that which first called 
the universe into existence. But infinite power is 
an attribute incommunicable to any creature, and if 
Christ exercise this power in raising; the dead, can 
we doubt his being essentially God ? 

It may, perhaps, be alleged, that the resurrection 
of the dead may be effected by a power short of 
infinite. On these lofty and mysterious subjects, the 
human mind is scarcely competent to decide, which 
should induce us to hesitate in denying the possibility 
of such a power being lodged in a finite being. 
But, even on this supposition, and be it remem- 
bered it is only a supposition, the raising the dead 
to life is a work of such stupendous magnitude, a 
work so nearly resembling creation, that it should 
seem impossible that a power equal to it could be 
delegated to man. Raise and exalt the powers of 
man to the highest pitch imagination can conceive, 
he must ever remain incompetent to such an effect 
Our Lord, then, who possesses this power, must, at 
any rate, possess a nature very far above human, if 
not con substantial with the Father. 

But may not the Almighty delegate a man, or 
some superior created being, to be the instrument 
through whom he will effectuate the resurrection of 
the dead ? Single instances of a resurrection have 
been granted to the prayers of his favoured servants, 
when such an interposition accorded with his high 
behests ; and as the universal resurrection of the 



304 Divine Attributes ascribed to Christ, [chap, v. 

dead is only an extension of the same power, may 
not some highly favoured individual be chosen as 
his instrument in the mighty work ? As God raised 
the widow's son by Elijah, Tabitha by St. Peter,, 
and Eutychus by St. Paul, may he not raise all the 
dead by the instrumentality of some other man ? To 
deny the possibility of this, would be arrogating a 
knowledge of the inscrutable operations of the Deity : 
yet such a mode of procedure would exalt a human 
being to such a near equality to God, would afford 
such a temptation to honour the creature instead of 
the Creator, that it is impossible to believe it con- 
sistent with infinite wisdom. But not to rest the 
answer to this objection on a priori arguments, the 
sacred Writings afford several reasons why it cannot 
apply to the case of J esus. 

First, Our Lord is not represented as a mere 
instrument in raising the dead, but as being him- 
self the fountain of this power. 44 I will raise it 
up," i. e. his body ; " the Son quickeneth whom he 
will;" " I will raise him up at the last day ;" " I 
have power to lay it (life) down, and I have power 
to take it again " I give unto them eternal life;" 
" I am the resurrection and the life Christ 
" shall change our vile body ;" these declarations 
plainly suppose in him an inherent power of raising 
the dead ; they are too unlimited to be applicable to 
one who did not originally, and in himself, possess 
the power of restoring life. This shews, beyond a 
doubt, that Jesus is not a mere instrument in rais- 
ing the dead, like the Prophets and Apostles, by 



chap, v.] a Proof of his Divinity, 305 

whom God restored some individuals to life. Now- 
according to a former remark, the power of raising 
the dead implies the omnipotence of the being in 
whom it resides ; and as Jesus, in these declarations, 
assures us that He has this power, he must be 
omnipotent. 

Secondly, So far is the resurrection of the dead 
from being ascribed to any human being, that it is 
often expressly attributed to God himself. " The 
Father raiseth up the dead/' (John v. 21.) ; " Why 
should it be thought a thing incredible with you, 
that God should raise the dead?" (Acts xxvi. 8.) ; 
" God, who quickeneth the dead/' (Rom. iv. 17.); 
a God, which raiseth the dead," (2 Cor. i. 9.) Here 
the resurrection of the dead is clearly attributed to 
God the Father; but, in the passages cited in this 
section, it is as expressly ascribed to the Son ; what 
other conclusion, then, can be drawn, if the Scrip- 
tures are infallibly true, than that the Father and 
the Son are one in essence, and that the attributes 
and operations of the one, are equally the attributes 
and operations of the other ? The same inference 
results from those texts wherein the resurrection of 
Christ is said to be by his power, John ii. 19. 21. 
x. 17, 18. compared with those in which it is as- 
cribed to God, Acts ii. 24. 32. iii. 15. iv. 10. Rom. 
iv. 24. viii. 11. &c. " It remaineth that Christ, by 
" that power which he had within himself, did take 
" his life again which he had laid down, did re- 
" unite his soul unto his body, from which he sepa- 

X 



306 Divine Attributes ascribed to Christ, [chap. v. 

" rated it when he gave up the ghost, and so did 
" quicken and revive himself : and so it is a certain 
" truth, not only that God the Father raised the 
" Son, but also that God the Son raised himself*.'' 
This being so, they must be one in nature, their 
perfections equal, and their glory one. — The fact, 
therefore, that Christ will raise the dead, is an irre- 
fragable proof of his divinity. 

Christ tcill judge the World. 

XLII. Matt. xiii. 40, 41. " In the end of the 
world, the Son of Man shall send forth his angels, 
and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things 
that offend, and them which do iniquity." 

Matt. xvi. 27. " The Son of Man shall come in 
the glory of his Father with his angels : and then 

HE SHALL REWARD EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS 

wokks." With this compare Revel, ii. 23. 

Matt. xxv. 31, 38. " When the Son of Man shall 
come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, 
then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory : and 
before him shall be gathered all nations ; and he 

SHALL SEPARATE THEM ONE FROM ANOTHER, as a shep- 
herd divideth his sheep from the goats." 

John v. 22. " The Father judgeth no man ; but 

HATH COMMITTED ALL JUDGMENT UNTO THE Son/' 

Though the whole series of this discourse shews 
that these words especially refer to the final judg- 

* Bishop Pearson, On the Creed , vol, i. p. 388. 



chap, v.] a Proof of his Divinity. 307 

merit, yet expressions so unlimited must likewise 
include the exercise of judicial powers in this world*. 

John v. 26, 27. " As the Father hath life in him- 
self, so hath he given to the Son to have life in him- 
self : and hath given him authority to execute 
judgment also, because he is the Son of Man 
i. e. because he is the Christ or Messiah, one of 
whose titles is the Son of Man, as the clause is ex- 
plained by Whitby, Pearce, Grotius, Lampe, Morus, 
Rosenmuller, Tittman, Kuinoelf. 

Acts x. 42. Jesus, " which was ordained of God 

TO BE THE JUDGE OF QUICK AND DEAD. " 

Acts xvii. 31. " He (God) hath appointed a day 
in the which he will judge the world in righ- 
teousness by that man whom he hath ordained." 

Rom. xiv. 10. " We shall all stand before the 

JUDGMENT-SEAT OF CHRIST." 

2 Cor. v. 10. " We must all appear before the 
judgment-seat of Christ ; that every one may 
receive the things done in his body, according to 
that he hath done, whether it be good or bad." 

2 Tim. iv. 1. " I charge thee before God, and 
the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick 
and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom." 

* Common sense requires us to understand this, and similar 
general expressions, so as not to exclude the Father. Suicer, 
Thesaur. torn. ii. p. 162. Petavius, Dogmat, lib. xii. cap. xvi. 

t Some join this clause to the next verse, " Because he is 
the Son of Man marvel not, &c." but improperly ; see Gries- 
bach and Wolfius, Curce in loc. and Pearson, On the Creed, 
vol. ii. p. 374. On the absence of the article in this clause, 
consult Middleton, Doct, of the Gr. Art. p. 351. 

%2 



308 Divine Attributes ascribed to Christ, [chap, v 
Revel, xxii. 12. ec Behold, I come quickly, and 

MY REWARD IS WITH ME, TO GIVE EVERY MAN ACCORD- 
ING AS HIS WORK SHALL BE." 

To these testimonies might be added Dan. vii. 
9 — 14. Revel, xx. 4. et seq. and those figurative 
and parabolical descriptions of Christ's judicial office, 
which are recorded in the Gospels * ; but the above 
are abundantly sufficient to establish incontrovertibly 
the fact, that Christ will judge the world at the final 
day of retribution. The qualifications required for 
the due execution of this office, demonstrate his 
divinity. The Being who is to " judge the quick 
and the dead/' must be omniscient, that he may 
know fully all the actions and internal motives of 
mankind ; immutable, that he may never recede 
from the rules of eternal equity and mercy ; and om- 
nipotent, in order to carry his decisions into effect. 
If it be once admitted that Christ is to exercise the 
office of final Judge, his deity so inevitably results, 
that it is astonishing Unitarians can, by any artifice, 
elude the force of this argument. 

They tell us, however, that all this may possibly 
be only a figurative representation, and may sig- 
nify no more than that the final sentence of all man- 
kind will be awarded according to the laws of justice 
proclaimed in the Gospel. More plain and literal 
declarations than those above quoted, it is impossible 
to find in the sacred Scriptures, and if they are to 

* Matt. iii. 12. xiii. 30. 47. xxv. 10. 19. 30. Bishop Pear- 
son, On the Creed, Art. VII. 



chap, v.] a Proof of his Divinity. 309 

be construed into figure, it is all over with revealed 
religion; " actum est/' and the Bible is perfectly 
useless as a rule of faith. But it fortunately happens 
that the inspired Writings supply us with a refuta- 
tion of this absurd conjecture. The final judgment 
of mankind is sometimes ascribed to God, as Rom. 
ii. 5. " the righteous judgment of God, who will 
render to every man according to his deeds." Again, 
" every one of us shall give account of himself 
to God/' (Rom. xiv. 12.); who, in Heb. xii. 23. is 
called " the judge of all " And I saw the dead, 
small and great, stand before God, and the books 
were opened/' (Rev. xx. 12.); " God is judge 
himself," (Ps. 1. 6. lxxv. 7.); " Unto thee, O Lord, 
belongeth mercy ; for thou renderest to every man 
according to his work," (Ps. Ixii. 12. compare also 
Jer. xvii. 10. xxxii. 19. Ezek. vii. 27. xxxiii. 20.) 
These texts must unquestionably be understood in 
their literal sense, which proves beyond a doubt 
that the parallel texts above cited must also have 
a literal signification. Both sets of texts must be 
literal, or both figurative, and as the latter are 
clearly literal, the former must be so likewise. 
Besides, as we find the same judicial office ascribed 
to the Father and the Son, they must have the 
same dominion and power, and consequently par- 
take of the same divinity. 

Again, Unitarians allege that the judicial power 
is given to our Saviour ; it is not original, but im- 
parted, which proves him not to possess supreme 
and essential deity. Orthodox believers, so far from 



310 Divine Attributes ascribed to Christ, [chap. y. 

denying that this office is delegated to the Son of 
Man, strenuously maintain this doctrine, as essen- 
tial to their scheme. In his mediatorial capacity, 
the Son is a delegate, acting according to the com- 
mission which he had received from the Father. 
But this is no derogation from, or diminution of, his 
absolute divinity as the second Person in the Trinity. 
" There is an original, supreme, autocratorical, 
" judiciary power; there is a judiciary power de- 
u legated, derived, given by commission. Christ, 
" as God, hath the first together with the Father 
" and the Holy Ghost. Christ, as Man, hath the 
" second from the Father expressly, from the Holy 
" Ghost concomitantly. For the Father hath given 
" him authority to execute judgment, because he 
" is the Son of Man ; not simply because he is 
" a Man, therefore he shall be judge, (for then by 
the same reason, every man should judge, and 
" consequently none, because no man could be 
" judged if every man should judge,) but because 
" of the three Persons which are God, he only is 
" also the Son of Man ; and therefore, for his 
" affinity with their nature, for his sense of their 
" infirmities, for his appearance to their eyes, most 
" fit to represent the greatest mildness and sweet- 
" ness of equity, in the severity of that just and 
" irrespective judgment/' Nothing can be added 
to these luminous remarks of the learned, judicious, 
and profound Bishop Pearson *. 

* On the Creed? vol. i. p. 448. 



chap, v.] a Proof of his Divinity. 311 

XL1I1. Having now proved that Jesus Christ 
sends the Spirit, pardons sins, hears and grants 
prayers, gives power and spiritual assistance, governs 
the world, will raise the dead, and, as judge, pass 
sentence upon them at the last day, acts and ope- 
rations impossible to be performed by a power 
less than almighty, we are warranted to conclude 
that his omnipotence has been demonstrated. If 
any texts should seem hostile to this conclusion, 
the contradiction cannot be real, and they must, 
when properly understood, harmonize with the ge- 
neral tenor of Scripture in the same result: this 
will appear from a brief examination of the most 
prominent texts which Unitarians have opposed to 
the absolute sovereignty of Jesus. 

Matt. xx. 23. " To sit on my right hand, and on 
my left, is not mine to give ; but it shall be given 
to them for whom it is prepared of my Father." In 
this verse our Saviour seems to disclaim all discre- 
tionary power in the distribution of future rewards ; 
but this inference only applies to the received trans- 
lation, not to the original, which should be ren- 
dered, " is not mine to give, except to those for 
whom it hath been prepared of my Father;" that is, 
Christ can only give the highest rewards of heaven 
according to the unalterable laws of the divine 
administration 

* This interpretation may be found in most of the commen- 
tators. See Kidder's Dem. of the Messias, P. II. p. 58. Jones 
On the Trin. sect, xxxii. and an admirable Sermon by Bishop 
Horsley on this text.* — Another text has been cited by the elder 



312 Divine Attributes ascribed to Christ, [chap. v. 

Mark vi. 5. " And he could there do no mighty 
work which does not mean that he was unable, 
but that it was not fit or expedient. In the parallel 
place, Matt. xiii. 58. it is, " And he did not many 
mighty works there, because of their unbelief oJ 
JCvoiTOii often denotes moral unfitness. (See sect. ii. 
of this chapter.) 

John xiv. 28. " My Father is greater than I." 
All Trinitarians believe, that the Son is " inferior 
to the Father as touching his manhood;" and many 
have not scrupled to apply this text to our Lord, 
even in his divine nature, as being God of God*. 

Acts iv. 30. They prayed the Lord to grant 
" that signs and wonders might be done by the 
name of his holy child Jesus/' which may seem to 
imply that these signs and wonders were done by a 
power different from, and superior to that of Jesus. 
But the meaning is, that, as all the manifestations of 
God to mankind, are in and by Jesus Christ, they 

Socinians, viz. Matt. xix. 17. " Why callest thou me good ? 
there is none good but one, that is God but, according to 
Griesbach's text, the sense is, " Why askest thou me concern- 
ing good?" "Quid interrogas me de bono'?" Vulgate, which 
does away with the seeming contradistinction between the 
Father and the Son. See Kuinoel in loc. 

* " Si enim Christus se nihil aliud quam nudum horninem 
professus est, ejusque discipuli eum pro illo habuerunt, quid 
attinebat tarn sollicite docere, quod Pater ipso major esset. 
Poteratne ullus sanae mentis dubitare, num Deus esset major 
nudo homine? Apparet itaque, quod in his ipsis verbis 
Christus prgesupponit se esse Deum summum." Bisterfeld, 
De Uno Deo, lib. i. sect. ii. cap. xiv. 



chap, v.] a Proof of his Divinity. 313 

supplicate him to assert his honour by a miraculous 
display of powers performed by Jesus Christ the 
Saviour. It must ever be remembered, that Jesus, 
as Mediator, was the delegated servant of God. 

I Cor. xi. 3. " The head of Christ is God." 
(Compare 1 Cor. iii. 23. ) The Father is the head 
of Christ, considered as Mediator, in which relation 
he received his kingdom and dominion from him, 
and does all things according* to the Father's will, 
and to his glory *. Many have referred this to 
Christ's divine nature, as deriving his essence and 
perfections, by eternal generation, from the Father f. 
—These are the strongest texts against the omni- 
potence of Christ ; and we have seen, that, instead 
of militating against the orthodox creed, they, in 
reality, strengthen and confirm it. 

XLIV. The result of our inquiries in this and 
the preceding chapter is, that divine titles and 
divine attributes are clearly and incontestably as- 
cribed to our Lord by the inspired Writers, and 
that consequently he partakes essentially of the 
Godhead. It seems impossible for a reflecting mind 
to resist this conclusion, and yet retain a pious sub- 
mission to apostolical authority, and a devout rever- 
ence for the holy Scriptures. 

* Whitby on the Place, and Bisterfeld, De Uno Deo, lib. i. 
sect. ii. cap. xxv. and xxvi. 

t Suicer, Thesaur. torn. ii. p. 96. 



CHAPTER VI. 



CREATION A PROOF OF CHRIST'S DIVINITY. 



1. The argument for Christ's divinity arising 
from the work of creation stands thus : the Son is 
Creator of the universe ; the Creator of the uni- 
verse is strictly and truly God ; therefore the Son is 
strictly and truly God. If the premises can be sa- 
tisfactorily made out, the conclusion will inevitably 
follow. 

The evidence supplied by the sacred Scriptures 
to the position, that Jesus Christ is the efficient 
Creator of the universe, will be found, upon exami- 
nation, to be perfectly conclusive. Yet the clearest 
declarations of Scripture cannot satisfy the subtilty 
of Socinian exposition, which interprets most of the 
passages, subsequently to be adduced, not of a pro- 
per, but of a metaphorical creation. All things 
belonging to the Gospel state, it is alleged, were 
regulated by the man Christ Jesus, and this is 
figuratively denominated by the inspired Writers a 
creation. " This is described to us as consisting 
" wholly in renovation, or a translation from a 
" worse unto a better condition by way of reforma- 



chap, vi.] Creation a Proof, #c. 315 

" tion ; those which have lost the image of 
" God, in which the first man was created, are 
" restored to the image of the same God again, by 
" a real change, though not substantial, wrought 
" within them */' As there are only these two 
creations mentioned in Scripture, the literal and 
the figurative, whatever passage is incompatible with 
the latter, must necessarily be referred to the for- 
mer. We must therefore shew, that, in ascribing 
a creation to our Lord, the sacred Penmen in- 
tended to express a real and proper, not a figurative 
creation. Bearing this in mind, let us review the 
various texts relating to this subject. 

II. John i. 3. " All things were made by him; 

AND WITHOUT HIM WAS NOT ANY THING MADE THAT WAS 

made." The distinct personality of the Logos, and 
the consequent divinity of our Lord, has been 
evinced before, chap. i. sect. i. Taking this for 
granted, we have an affirmation in strong and em- 
phatic language, that " all things" were made by 
the Son ; and, in order to remove any doubt as to 
the extent of the assertion, the Evangelist repeats 
the same thing over again, but negatively, that 
" without him was not any thing made that was 
made." Language does not afford terms more ex- 
press. It is not said other things, or such and such 
things were created by him, but tt^t^, all things 
absolutely ; and to prevent any misconception, it is 



* Bishop Pearson, On the Creed, Art. II. vol. i. p. 190. 



316 Creation a Proof of [chap. vi. 

added, that without him was not any thing made, 
ouTe ev, not so much as any single thing ; he being 
the Creator of every thing that exists, visible and 
invisible.— The phrase " all things were made by 
him/' J 1 *' uvTQv, signifies the same as " he made all 
things/ 1 The expressions <xvtqv and oZ, t« 
navTa, are applied to the Father himself, Rom. xi. 
36. Heb. ii. 10. which proves that the preposition 
iioc does not denote inferiority, though it may, per- 
haps, intimate a distinction ; that is to say, a dis- 
tinction of Persons, and withal some priority of 
order, as the Father is the fountain of all, and the 
first in our conception whenever we think of the 
Deity *. 

The terms in this passage are too general and 
unlimited to admit the supposition of a moral crea- 
tion. If the Apostle had intended merely to ex- 
press that all things were done by Christ in the 
Christian dispensation, no reason can be assigned 
for his adopting terms of such extensive significa- 
tion. If his meaning extended no farther than the 
things of that dispensation, why did he not tell us 
so plainly and expressly ? The universality of the 

* " The preposition with a genitive after it, is frequently 
used, as well in Scripture, as in ecclesiastical writers, to express 
the efficient cause, as much as vtto or h, or Trpoc, or any other." 
Dr. Waterlaiid, Defence, Qu. 11. p. 185. The reasoning of 
this learned writer, respecting the Arian notion of an inferiority 
being signified by hot is truly admirable. This preposition is 
referred to the Father in the sense of efficient cause, 1 Cor. i. 9. 
Gal. i. 1. 



chap, vi.] Christ's Divinity. 317 

terms is inconsistent with any restriction in the 
meaning 1 . Secondly, No instance can be produced 
where the expression ttccvt<z, all things, denotes 
the work of the moral creation. The texts referred 
to by Mr. Belsham, are manifestly insufficient, as 
they only prove that ttuvtm is sometimes taken in a 
restricted sense, which is not doubted ; whereas 
what his interpretation requires is*an example where 
Ta vdvTot means all the things of the Christian dis- 
pensation. He appeals to IJ ohn ii. 20. ' ' Ye have an 
unction from the holy One, and ye know all things 
which is limited to things known, and does not 
comprehend things done by Christ, of which men- 
tion is made in this verse. On the contrary, t& 
wdvToe. not only naturally signifies all created things, 
the whole universe, but is actually used in this 
sense by the sacred Writers *. Thirdly, If ra 
wdvra might, by an ellipsis, denote all things in the 
Gospel dispensation, it is very unlikely that St. 
John would begin to speak of the new creation in 
such an elliptical manner. Yet, according to the 
Unitarian exposition, he commences with leaving* 
the subject of his discourse to be supplied by his 
readers. Fourthly, The first words, " In the be- 
ginning," seem to have a connection with this verse, 
" All things were made by him the former ex- 

* ** Significat wolvtcc h. 1. omnes res creates, visibiles et in- 
visibiles, quas Graeci fere to ttcLv universum dicere solent, 
Scriptores N. T. autem t«. wuvtcc vocare amant, ut h. 1. et 
Hebr. i. 3. 2 Pet. iii. 4. Apoc. iv. 11." Schleusner, ?r«?. 1. 



318 Creation a Proof of [chap. vi. 

pressing the time of the latter *. Now all things 
in the Christian dispensation were not done in the 
beginning of it To extend the meaning of the 
phrase " in the beginning/' to the whole duration 
of Christ's personal ministry, and even of that of 
the Apostles, because in the ministry committed to 
his Apostles, nothing was done without his warrant, 
would be a gross violation of the established mean- 
ing of the words. No art can remove the incon- 
gruity of saying, all things were made or done in 
the beginning, if the verse in question relates to a 
moral creation. Fifthly, The ancient Fathers uni- 
versally interpreted the verse of a proper creation. 

The opposers of our Lord's divinity render the 
verse, " Ail things were done by or through him, 
and without him was not any thing done, that has 
been done" i. e. all things were accomplished by 
him in the Christian dispensation ; and they urge 
in its defence, that the word yivopoa never signifies 
to create. To this it may be answered, First, 
That ytvopoti undoubtedly signifies to create, Heb. 
iv. 3. xi. 3. James hi. 9. and occasionally in the 
Septuagint, as may be seen in Schleusner. Se- 
condly, That no evidence can be produced of yln- 
fj.au ever denoting the spiritual creation f . Thirdly, 
That the word, it is reasonable to suppose, bears 
the same sense in v. 10. " the world was made by v 

* Wardlaw's Discourses, p. 104. 
t See Kuinoel, Com. in v. 10. 



chap, vi ] Christ's Divinity. 319 

him f but as it would be absurd to render it, " the 
world was done by him/' it can scarcely be the pro- 
per translation in the verse before us *. We may 
then, safely conclude, that the modern Unitarian 
translation is altogether inadmissible : but if it were 
not, as long as ir&vm is taken in the sense of all 
things whatsoever, which it literally imports, the 
version, " all things were done by him/' would not 
exclude a proper efficiency in the work of creation, 
Another turn has been given to the clause, 
namely, " All things were made for him/' which 
is as little defensible as the former : the second 
clause, " and without him, x 00 ?^ « u ' to "j was not any 
thing made that was made," demonstrates that <ft' 
auTou in the first, denotes the efficient cause. The 
same strange interpretation has been extended to 
v. 10. " The world was made for him," where it 
must clearly signify the same as in v. 3. viz. by 
him ; for with a genitive, denotes the efficient 
cause, and with an accusative, the final cause. 

III. John i. 10. " He was in the world, and 
the world was made by him, and the world knew 
him not." If a moral creation is meant by the 
clause in capitals, the term " world" must denote 
mankind in general or in part : but it cannot denote 

* The Unitarian translators, rinding that the tenth cannot 
admit the translation of the third verse, render iysvsro, " the 
world was enlightened by him ;" to mention this is surely to 
expose it. See Veysie's Defence, p. 63. Rennell's Animadver- 
sions, p. 66. et seq. 



320 Creation a Proof of [chap. yi, 

all mankind, as they have not been universally the 
work of this moral renovation : neither can it 
denote the vicious part, as they have not been spi- 
ritually created in Christ Jesus ; nor can it mean 
the virtuous part, who receive his message, for the 
world here mentioned, is a world which " knew 
him not," and therefore cannot be the work of a 
spiritual creation, the very nature of which was to 
confer a knowledge of Christ and his Gospel. The 
inference is obvious, as the " world/' in this clause, 
cannot denote mankind, in general or in part, it must 
signify the material creation. 

The only way to avoid this conclusion, is to sup- 
pose that the word in the second clause means the 
renewed part of mankind, and in the third the 
unregenerate part; by which means the opposition 
between them will be avoided. But it is highly 
improbable that St. John would use a phraseology 
so ambiguous. Besides, the word x 007*0? never sig- 
nifies, in Scripture, the virtuous, the renewed or 
spiritually renovated part of mankind, but when- 
ever it is figuratively used for men, it denotes the 
wicked, the adversaries to the doctrine of Christ *. 
Thus the argument above remains unshaken ; and 
this text furnishes a strong evidence that Christ is 
the Creator of the material world. 

IV. 1 Cor. viii. 6. " To us there is but one 
God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in 



* This observation I owe to Kuindel, Comm. in he. 



chap, vl.] Christ's Divinity. 321 

him : and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all 
things, and we by him." Both Arians and Soci- 
nians lay claim to this text in support of their 
respective schemes ; but it perfectly harmonizes 
with the Trinitarian doctrine. " The Apostle, in- 
(C deed, here calls the Father the one God : but the 
" question is, whether he is so called in opposition 
" to, or exclusion of the Son, or only of the many 
" false gods of the Gentiles. The latter seems to 
" me evident, First, because the Apostle's argu- 
" ment requires no more. He is not making here 
" a comparison between the Persons in the blessed 
" Trinity, but between the one true God, and the 
" many idols or false gods. Secondly, because 
" Jesus Christ is called Lord, not in opposition to, 
u or exclusion of the Father, but only of the many 
" who were called lords among the Gentiles. As, 
" therefore, the Father is properly called Lord, 
" notwithstanding that Jesus Christ is here said to 
" be the one Lord, so we believe Jesus Christ to be 
" God, notwithstanding that the Father is here called 
" the one God. Thirdly, because if Jesus Christ 
" is here excluded from the title of the one God, 
" he must be included among the ' many who 
" are called gods/ that is, among those whom 
" the Apostle calls ' idols/ and ' nothing in the 
" world*/" 

These arguments of this learned vindicator of the 
faith prove unanswerably that the Father is not 

* 

* Dr. Randolph, Vindication, P. II. p. 64. 

Y 



322 Creation a Proof of [chap. vi. 

called God in opposition to the Son, but to the 
false gods of the heathen. Although the Apostle 
affirms that " to us there is but one God, the 
Father/' he cannot be supposed to exclude Jesus 
Christ from being the God of Christians, any more 
than by calling Christ the " one Lord/' to exclude 
the Father from being Lord, as he is often styled in 
the New Testament. On the contrary, he inti- 
mates, by this mode of expression, that Father and 
Son are one God and one Lord, in the Unity of 
the Godhead. If this were not the case, is it con- 
ceivable that the Apostle, at the moment he was 
pronouncing the nothingness of idols, should lay a 
snare to involve men in idolatry, by extending to 
Christ the honour due only to God, declaring that 
besides God the Father, of whom are all things, 
there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all 
things ? " Is it possible," says Dr. Graves, " the 
" incommunicable attributes of creating and sus- 
" taining all things, would have been thus divided, 
" as it were, between the great First Cause, the 
" universal Father, and Christ the Lord, if the 
" Godhead of the Father and the Son had not been 
" one and the same, co-equal and co-eternal *." 

Agreeably to this view of the passage, it may 
thus be paraphrased : " To us Christians there is 
only one God, justly styled the Father, because he 
is the Being of whom, as the original Cause, are all 
things, and we to, or, for him, tk ocvtov, to his ser- 

* Scriptural Proofs of the Trinity t p. 15. 



chap, vi.] Christ's Divinity. 323 

vice and for his glory ; and one Lord, even Jesus 
Christ, by whom, as the efficient cause, all things 
were created, and we by him are created, redeemed, 
and have access to the Father." — As from this text, 
we may infer the deity of Christ, so may we also 
infer the pre-eminence of the Father, and the 
subordination of the Son. " Of whom" being ap- 
plied to the Father, and " by whom" to the Son, 
signify at once the unity of operation, and the dis- 
tinction of Persons. The former shews that the 
Father is the fountain and source of deity and of 
every thing else, and the latter designates the Son 
as the efficient agent in the creation of all things in 
mysterious subordination *. It is scarcely necessary 
to observe that this text cannot relate to a moral 
creation. If the expressions " all things are o/'the 
Father," are to be understood in their utmost extent, 
as no one will deny, the words " all things are by 
Christ," must likewise be understood in their utmost 
extent. If the former are not metaphorical, neither 
are the latter. As it is said " all things are of the 
Father," so is it said, with equal latitude of expres- 
sion, that " all things are by the Son conse- 
quently the operation of the one is of equal extent 
with the operation of the other. There is nothing 
of the Father but by the Son ; nor any thing by 
the Son, but what is also of the Father : so that 
the original of all created things is referred up to 



* Bull, Def. Fid. Nic. sect. ii. cap. ix, § 10. 

y 2 



324 Creation a Proof of [ch ap. v*. 

Both, as to one individual Cause and Author of 
their existence *. 

V. Col. i. 16, 17. " For by him (i. e. the Son) 

WERE ALL THINGS CREATED THAT ARE IN HEAVEN, ANI> 
THAT ARE IN EARTH, VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE, WHETHER 
THEY BE THRONES, OR DOMINIONS, OR PRINCIPALITIES, 
OR POWERS ; ALL THINGS WERE CREATED BY HIM AND 

for him. And he is before all things, and by him 
all thing's consist." According to the principles laid 
down in the beginning of this chapter, if a moral 
creation was not intended in this passage, it must be 
understood of a real, physical creation. Now that 
a spiritual creation is not meant, is evident from the 
following considerations. First, the passage, in its 
literal and obvious sense, is a strong and vivid de- 
scription of the Son s creative power. The phrase 
" all things in heaven and earth, visible and invi- 
sible," is never used in a moral sense, or concerning 
any other creation than that of which Moses speaks 
in the beginning of Genesis. If these expressions 
were not intended to convey the notion of a proper 

* Dr. Waterland, Second Sermon at Lady Moyers, Defence, 
Qu. 2. p. 8. On this passage of 1 Cor. Bisterfeld, De Uno 
Deo, lib. i. cap. ii. Whitby and Pool's Synopsis deserve to be 
consulted. See also Mede, Works, p. 628. and for the senti- 
ments of the Fathers, Suicer, Thesaur. torn. i. p. 1038. Bis- 
terfeld well observes, " Si ilia omnia sunt ex Patre, et per 
Filium, necesse est ut hi duo sint unum et idem omnipotens 
agens, adeoque unus et idem Deus." De Uno Deo, p. 47. 



chap, vi.] Christ's Divinity. 32b 

creation, there can be no dependence in Scripture 
phraseology ; and the sacred W ritings, instead of 
being an unerring guide, would be an asnigma, the 
meaning of which might be guessed, but could not 
be certainly known. Secondly, such things are in- 
troduced as are incapable of this moral creation; 
for the expressions, " all things, -vol irdvrot, that are 
in the earth/' and " things visible," TCt opxia., must 
comprise things without life, the mute, inanimate 
parts of nature, concerning which it is absurd to 
speak of a moral renovation. Thirdly, under the 
terms " things in heaven" and " invisible, whe- 
ther they be thrones, or dominions/' &c. must be 
comprehended the whole celestial hierarchy ; but 
good angels and u ministering spirits" surely did not 
require a spiritual renovation, and Christ came not 
to convert fallen angels, but to destroy the empire 
of Satan in the world. Fourthly, if Jesus is only 
a man, it cannot be said, even in reference to the 
new creation, that all things are " for him/* as in 
that case he can be no more than the instrument to 
reduce mankind to their subjection and obedience to 
God, for whose glory the Christian dispensation was 
vouchsafed to man. Fifthly, the Apostle afterwards 
in v. 18. begins his discourse concerning this moral 
creation, and to display the glory of Christ, as the 
Head of the Church ; which proves that he was not 
speaking of a moral creation before. 

These reasons place the matter beyond the reach 
of doubt, that Col. i. 16. describes a real material 
creation, not a moral renovation. The expressions 



326 Creation a Proof of [chap. vi. 

" all things were created by him and for him/' 
auVoU nou tig olvtqv, are the very same as are probably 
applied to the Father, Rom. xi. 36. As such ex- 
pressions, indifferently applied to either, cannot be 
supposed to be accidental, they must be intended to 
intimate, that the operation of one is of equal extent 
with the operation of the other, and that creation is 
but one work of Both. " Lest we should conceive 
" the Son framing the world as a mere instrumen- 
" tal cause, which worketh by and for another, he 
" sheweth him as well the final as the efficient cause; 
" for all things were created by him and for 
" him. Whereas all things first receive their being 
" by creation, and when they have received it, con- 
" tinue in the same by virtue of God's conservation, 
" in whom we live, and move, and have our being; 
" lest in any thing we should be thought not to 
" depend immediately upon the Son of God, he is 
" described as the Conserver, as well as the Crea- 
* • tor ; for he is before all things, and by him all 
" things consist*." The meaning, then, of the* 
whole passage, may be thus given by way of para- 
phrase. " By him, who is the Son of God, were 
created all things, whether above or below, that 
are in heaven and that are in earth, visible 
and invisible, not only things visible to our eyes, 
but likewise those superior intelligences which 
are invisible to us, whether they be thrones, or 
dominions, or principalities, or poivers, whatever 

* Bishop Pearson, On the Creed, vol. i. p. 189. 



chap. vi.J Christ's Divinity. 327 

their rank and nature may be ; all things whatsoever 
were created by him as the efficient Cause,, and for 
him as the final Cause ; for he is not only the Crea- 
tor, but the perpetual Sustainer and Preserver of 
the whole universe*." 

VI. Heb i. 2. God " hath in these last days 
spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed 
heir of all things, by whom also he made the 
worlds." Our Lord is so expressly stated in these 
words to be the efficient Creator of the worlds, that 
it is absolutely necessary for Unitarians to rid them- 

* For a more particular reply to the Unitarian gloss, see 
Sherlock, Vindication, p. 156. Dr. Magee, On Atonement, 
vol. i. No. 1. Veysie, Defence, p. 89. Bishop Burgess, Bible, fyc. 
p. 16. Whitby, in loc. See also Burnet, De Fide et Officiis, 
cap. vii. p. 134. 

Ephes. iii. 9. " God, who created all things by Jesus Christ," 
cannot be appealed to, as the words " by Jesus Christ," are 
wanting in many MSS. and Griesbach omits them in his edition 
of the New Testament. Even admitting their authenticity, it 
may be doubted whether the context would not warrant our 
restraining " the creation of all things/' to the new creation 
only; though, in my humble opinion, a more enlarged sense is 
preferable. For, to use the words of Chandler, " as the ex- 
f* pression is here general, created all things, I see no reason 
" why we should confine it to the new creation only ; since it 
" is certain that God crested the heavens and the earth by 
" Jesus Christ, as well as the Christian Church; I may add, 
" that the including the first creation in the expression, adds 
(t a dignity to the sentiment, as it represents our blessed 
" Saviour as the author of the first and the second, the natural 
" and the moral creation, under the direction and by the 
*■ power of God the Father," Note to Paraphrase in loc. 

9 



328 Creation a Proof of [chap. vi. 

selves, by some critical process or other, of a pas- 
sage so hostile to their system. For this purpose, 
they eagerly adopt the rendering of Grotius, " for 
whom he made the worlds/' thus giving to the word 
hoi a signification of which no example is to be 
found in the whole New Testament, and which is in 
direct opposition to the established rule of grammar, 
that hoi with a genitive case, commonly signifies the 
ineans by which, and never the final cause, unless 
when joined with an accusative. This rule is in- 
variably observed by the inspired writers of the 
New Testament*. The ancient versions are una- 
nimous in rendering it " per quern." 

An interpretation which thus violates the rules and 
analogy of the language, is so completely indefen- 
sible that other Socinians have adopted another, in 
which Tovg almocs is made to signify the Gospel dispen- 
sation, and the whole passage is explained of God's 
having: erected the Christian church by the minis- 
try of Christ. This, however, is liable to insupe- 
rable objections. There is not the least vestige of 

* On tiie preposition see Matthias's Gr. Gram, by Blom- 
field, No. 580. Vigerus, Be Jdiotismis, p. 468. ed. Oxon. 1813. 
Glass, Phil. Sac. p. 466. The only instance appealed to by 
Grotius in defence of his translation, is Rom. vi. 4. which is 
clearly not a case in point. Schleusner and Glass refer to 
2 Pet. i. 3. where ha with the genitive, is supposed to denote 
the jinal cause, in which, however, they are manifestly mis- 
taken, as may be seen by consulting Rosenmuller and other 
commentators on the Place. Schleusner also &a, 20. explains 
it by propter, but the texts quoted to exemplify it, shew that 
it has no reference to the final cause. 



chap, vi.] Christ's Divinity. 329 

evidence that the Hebrews, to whom this Epistle 
was written, ever used mm aluvas to signify the 
human race ; but there is clear proof of their using 
this expression to denote the material universe *. 
Add to this, that ol alvut;, absolutely put, as Whitby 
remarks, doth never signify the Church, or evan- 
gelical state ; nor doth the Scripture ever speak of 
the world to come in the plural but in the singular 
number only. Admitting the word to imply a dis- 
pensation, it is certainly a violation of grammar and 
the analogy of language to make the plural aluvxg 
to signify this one dispensation. Such an usage is 
unexampled in the New Testament. Yet, if we 
render it dispensations, understanding by the term 
the Antediluvian, Patriarchal, and Mosaical dispen- 
sations, the clause will establish our Lord's pre- 
existence, as completely as the sense of a material 
creation. 

Since the Unitarian expositions will not stand the 
test of critical examination, we ought to adopt the 
generally received interpretation, that the whole 
material fabric of the universe was created by Jesus 
Christ. The truth of this is confirmed by the use 
of the plural tou? ataw, in ch. xi. 3. of this Epistle 

* See the admirable remarks of Bishop Bull, Judicium 
Ecrfcs. Cathol. cap. v. § 8. He says, " Sane juramento aU- 
quis tuto a Hi r mare possit, ex Hebraeis, ad quos scripta fuit ilia 
Epistola, ne unum quid em fuisse, qui Scriptoris verba hoc sensu 
inteilexerit, aut vel per somniuni cogitaverif, per rovq uiwvcts, 
secirfa, siguificatum fuisse tantum genus humauum, iiedum ejus 
partem illatn, cui tunc temporis Evangeiu lux affubcrit." 



330 Creation a Proof of [chap. vi. 

to denote the physical world, and by the idiom of 
the Jews, who always use the word plurally to 
signify the heavens and the earth * Nor should 
it be forgotten, that this interpretation is most 
agreeable to the scope of the Apostle's discourse. 
His intention is to give the loftiest description of 
our Saviour's greatness and dignity ; and as he ex- 
emplifies it in one instance, the " upholding all 
things by the word of his power/' it is not probable 
that he would omit that which is as great or greater, 
God's creating the worlds by him. The passage 
was understood agreeably to this interpretation by 
the ancient Fathers, as is shewn by Whitby and 
Suieer. 

VII. Heb. i. 10—12. " And thou, Lord, in the 
beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth ; 
and the heavens are the works of thy hands : they 
all shall perish, but thou remainest ; and they shall 
wax old, as doth a garment; and as a vesture shalt 
thou fold them up, and they shall be changed ; but 
thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail." 
This is a quotation from Psalm cii. 25. according 
to the LXX. and no words can more distinctly refer 

* Alav, in the LXX. answers to the Hebrew oVltf, a word 
perhaps never signifying the world in the Old Testament, (see 
the Lex. of Shnonis and Gousset,) bat frequently employed by 
the Bobbins in that sense, as may be seen in Buxtorf, Lex. 
Chald. Talm. et Rah. p. 1020. and Castell, Lex. Hept. p. 2715. 
It also signifies the world in Syriac, (Schaaf, Lex. Syr.) and in 
Arabic, Golius, Lex. Arab. p. 1639, 



chap, vi.] Christ's Divinity. 331 

the creation of the material universe to the Son. 
As well might the first verse in Genesis be taken in 
a figurative sense, as the passage just cited. It is 
too plain and express to admit any subtilties about 
the renovation of the moral world. It contains 
several expressions wholly incompatible with such 
a supposition ; for how can a new spiritual creation 
and moral world " wax old as doth a garment ?" or 
be " folded up as a vesture ?" or " be changed" and 
" perish ?" 

The only doubt that can possibly remain is, whe- 
ther the inspired author of the Epistle actually 
applied these words of the Psalmist to the Son. In 
determining this question, it is not necessary to 
inquire whether the Psalm whence they are taken 
be prophetical of the Messiah, or is cited only by 
way of accommodation. It will answer our purpose 
to shew that the writer of the Epistle really applies 
the expressions to the Son ; and every scruple on 
this point will be removed if we take into consi- 
deration ; first, that the conjunction not), and, is 
not a part of the quotation, but is supplied by the 
writer ; it must, therefore, connect this with the 
former citations, which indubitably refer to Christ : 
and, secondly, that the scope of the whole chapter 
is to prove the dignity and pre-eminence of the 
Son, and if this quotation is addressed to the Father, 
or relates to the angels, as Peirce absurdly imagines, 
it is irrelevant to the Apostle's argument. He 
adduces several passages immediately addressed to 
the Son, and if this have no reference to the same 



832 Creation a Proof of [chap. vi. 

its introduction is most unaccountable. Indeed, a 
bare perusal of the context must convince the 
reader that, like the other quotations, it refers to 
the Son, who is thus expressly described as the 
Maker of the heavens and the earth. 

VIII. Revel, iii. 14. (( The beginning of the 
creation of God." Our Lord is here denominated 
M the Beginning and though an absolutely con- 
clusive argument cannot be grounded upon this 
passage, it is highly probable that creation is as- 
cribed to him. The words, it is true, may be ren- 
dered " the Lord of the creation of God but 
ufai seems rather to mean " auctor initii," the effi- 
cient cause or author of the creation # . Christ is 
also styled " the Beginning/ 5 Col. i. 18. where 
some suppose this expression relates to his being 
" the first fruits of them that slept," (I Cor. xv. 20.) ; 
others to his being the efficient Cause or Ruler of 
the Church ; and others to his being the Creator 
and Cause of all things. 

IX. It is unnecessary to adduce those testimo- 
nies from the Old Testament, which have been 
considered by the ancients and many moderns as 
attesting the same truth f . The evidence already 
produced establishes in the clearest manner the first 

* See Wolf and Rosenmuiler. Woodhouse thinks it denotes 
the new creation. 

t As for instance, Gen. i. 26. Ps xxxiii. 6. 9. cxlviii.5. Prov. 



chap, vi.] Christ's Divinity. 333 

branch of our argument, that the Son, the second 
Person in the Trinity was the efficient Creator of 
the universe. The Scriptures bear witness to this 
truth in language the most unequivocal " All 
things were made by him," " all things in heaven 
and earth, visible and invisible ;" and if this does 
not denote a proper efficiency, in what terms can it 
possibly be expressed ? u We have every word 
" employed in the case that can be supposed to 
" carry any weight and significancy : vdyra, sybtt'o, 
" says St. John, ' all things were made.' Or if 
u xTi^f^, to create, be stronger, vdvret IxtiVSh, ' all 
" things were created/ twice over by St. Paul, 
" Col. i. 16. Or if ttoiuu be imagined to signify 
" something more, we have that word also, oZ 
" tov; aim ot g inQln<rtv 3 i by whom he made the 
" worlds V". 

X. We must now proceed to the proof of our 
next position, that the Creator of the universe is 
strictly and truly God ; a truth so fully confirmed 
by the deductions of reason, and the whole tenor 
of Scripture, that it is useless to multiply many 
quotations. " In the beginning God created the 
heaven and the earth/* Gen. i. 1. " O Lord God 
of Israel — thou hast made heaven and earth/' % 
Kings xix. 15. " The heavens declare the glory 
of God, and the firmament sheweth his handy- 
work," Ps. xix. 1. " The heavens are thine, the 



* Dr. Waterland, Sermon II, at Lady Moyer's, p. 68. 



334 Creation a Proof of [chap. vi. 

earth also is thine : as for the world and the fulness 
thereof, thou hast founded them : the north and 
the south, thou hast created them/' Ps. Ixxxix. 11. 
" Thus saith God the Lord, he that created the 
heavens, and stretched them out ; he that spread 
forth the earth," Isa. xlii. 5. " I have made the 
earth, and created man upon it : I, even my hands 
have stretched out the heavens, and all their host 
have I commanded/' Isa. xlv. 12. " He that built 
all things is God," Heb. iii. 4. It would be tedious 
to add more. 

XI. Having now proved that the Son is the 
Creator of the universe, and that the Creator of the 
universe is strictly and truly God; the conclusion 
cannot by any means be evaded, that the Son, our 
Lord Jesus Christ, is strictly and truly God. Ac- 
quiescing, as we must, in the legitimacy of this 
conclusion, let us put an end to this portion of the 
work with one or two observations upon the ortho- 
dox doctrine respecting the work of creation. 

From the citations in this chapter, it appears 
that all things, or the universe, are sometimes said 
to be made by the Son, and at other times that God 
made them by or through him. This different 
manner of expressing the same thing certainly did 
not fall from the sacred writers by chance. No ! 
It was intended, as Dr. Waterland observes, " to 
" keep us from two extremes ; that we may not so 
" interpret God's making all things by the Son, as 
" to exclude the Son from being properly Creator : 



chap, vi.] Christ's Divinity. 335 

" nor so interpret the Son's making all things, as 
" to forget that he is a Son, and as such refers all 
" to the Father, as the Head and Fountain of the 
" Son himself # . ? ' The Father, as such, is pri- 
marily Creator, and the Son secondarily Creator. 
All things are made by the Son, but in conjunction 
with the Father, and the Father hath made nothing 
but by the Son. Hence, while we acknowledge the 
Son to be the efficient Creator of all things, we 
likewise confess in our public formularies that the 
Father is eminently and emphatically " the Maker 
of heaven and earth/' 

As this distinction of order is made known to us 
in the sacred Oracles, so must it be inviolably main- 
tained. And as it is no diminution of the essential 
divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost, to acknowledge 
the Father to be the fountain of Deity, so it is no 
derogation to the proper efficiency of them both to 
assert that the Father is primarily Creator. He is 
so as first in order ; yet Father, Son, and Holy 
Ghost are all jointly concerned in the work of 
creation; not as many Creators, but as One Creator. 
The entire universe is the joint work of the whole 
and undivided Trinity. Yet as there is a distinction 
in the Three Persons, so is there a distinction in 
the manner of their operation, while they are in- 
divisibiy One in nature and essence. This is the 
pre-eminence of the Father, that he is first in 

* Sermon II. at Lady Movers Lecture, p. 57. See also his 
Defence, Qu. 11. p. 183. 



336 Creation a Proof, $c. [ca ap. VI. 

order, the root and fountain of the Godhead, the 
Son second in order, as begotten of the Father, 
and the Holy Ghost third in order, as proceeding 
from both. Though all created beings are the crea- 
tures of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy 
Ghost, the catholic faith requires us to own the 
Father as the Source and Head in the work of 
creation, and the two other Persons as acting in, 
and executing the same work, but in harmonious 
subordination to Him as the Head and Centre of 
divinity. 



CHAPTER VII. 



DIVINE WORSHIP DIRECTED TO CHRIST, A PROOF OF HIS 
DIVINITY. 



I. That the one supreme God is the only proper 
object of religious adoration, is a truth which no 
Protestant will be disposed to deny. The invo- 
cation of even the highest of created beings is 
an idolatrous act ; it implies the omniscience and 
ubiquity of the being invoked, and these attributes 
cannot without blasphemy be ascribed to a creature, 
however exalted*. The Mosaic ritual was prin- 
cipally designed to oppose the errors of polytheism, 
and to inculcate the belief of One God, the only 
object of prayer, praise, and adoration. Chris- 
tianity demands a purer and more elevated devo- 

* Nowelli Catechismus, p. 119. Oxon. 1795. As to the dis- 
tinction of worship into ultimate, supreme, or sovereign, and 
into mediate, relative, or inferior, by which Arians and Ro- 
manists pretend to justify their creature- worship, it has no foun- 
dation in Scripture, and is entirely repugnant to reason. See a 
refutation in Dr. Waterland, Defence, Qu. 16. Second Defence, 
Qu. 16. Bishop Burnet, On Art. XXII. Bishop Stillingfleet, 
Idolatry of the Church of Rome, cap. ii. and many other 
writers upon the Roman Catholic controversy. 

z 



338 Divine Worship directed to Christ, [chap. vis. 

tion; and while it raises the mind to the con- 
templation of the great First Cause,, requires a 
more spiritual worship to be directed to Him alone. 
Our Saviour, when tempted of the Devil to fall 
down and worship him, answered, " Thou shalt 
worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou 
serve/' (Matt. iv. 10.) The worship of angels is 
probably forbidden, Col. ii. 18 # . The Apostles 
exhorted all idolaters to forsake their idols and false 
deities, and to serve the living God, (Acts xiv. 15. 
1 Thess. i. 9.) When worship was offered by 
Cornelius to St. Peter, the holy Apostle forbad it, 
(Acts x. 25,) ; upon the people of Lystra offering 
to do sacrifice to Paul and Barnabas, they rejected 
it with the utmost indignation, (Acts xiv. 11.) ; and 
the angel both refused to be worshipped by St. 
John, and commanded him to worship God, (Rev. 
xix. 10. xxii. 9.) The Old Testament abounds 
with declarations of the same nature ; <c Thou 
shalt have no other gods before me — thou shalt 
not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them," 
(Exod. xx. 2, 3.) ; " Thou shalt fear the Lord thy 
God; Him shalt thou serve," (Deut. x. 20.); " If 
there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of 

* Some commentators, as Schoetgen, Wolfius, and Kreb- 
sius, understand this passage of angelic worship, i. e. a purer 
worship, like that paid by the angels. Schleusner renders 
S^ffxtt* ruv uyyzXuv by " summa religio," in Lex, Q^o-xtix. See 
Parkhurst. That it denotes the worshipping of angels is well 
defended by Peirce. See also Whitby and Suicer, Thesaur. 
torn. i. p. 44. 



chap, vii.] a Proof of his Divinity. 339 

dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, and 
the sign or wonder come to pass, whereof he spake 
unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which 
thou hast not known, and let us serve them, thou 
shalt not hearken unto them," &c. (Deut. xiii. 1 — 3.) 
I need quote no more. 

On this basis an invincible argument may be 
erected in defence of our Saviour's divinity. There 
is but one Jehovah, to whom alone we are directed 
to pray, and as it will be proved in the sequel, that 
prayer is commanded to be addressed to Christ, he 
is thereby identified with the one Jehovah. If Jesus 
Christ is proposed in the New Testament as the 
object of divine worship, or if the religious adora- 
tion of him be sanctioned by the example of the 
inspired Apostles and Evangelists, the necessary in- 
ference is, that he must be really and truly God. 

II. In proof of Christ's being proposed as the 
object of divine worship, we cannot properly urge 
the numerous instances of those who fell down at 
his feet and worshipped him, as they may only have 
been acts of civil respect. It is well known that 
prostration was anciently, and is still among the 
orientals, the customary expression of civil homage ; 
and the instances of obeisance paid to our Lord, 
during his state of humiliation in the flesh, may 
have been of that nature. Less equivocal testi- 
monies must be sought ; and many such present 
themselves to notice, abundantly sufficient to 

z2 



340 Divine Worship directed to Christ, [chap. vis. 

establish the position asserted and maintained in 
this chapter. 

HI. Matt. ii. 11. " When they (the Magians) 
were come into the house,, they saw the young 
child with Mary his mother, and fell down and 
worshipped him ; and when they had opened their 
treasures, they presented unto him gifts ; gold, 
frankincense, and myrrh." As the people of the 
east never came into the presence of their princes 
without some presents *, this is thought by some to 
mean no more than that the Magians paid civil 
homage to the new-born prince. The verb wgoir- 
xvv'too is also used as well to express civil reverence 
by prostration, as religious worship ; yet the latter 
seems to be implied in this passage ; for, first, the 
Magians declare that their object in visiting Judea, 
was to worship him who was born " King of the 
Jews," (v. 2.) Now, what personage is meant by 
this designation ? It cannot be any ordinary king, 
for the miraculous circumstances attending the jour- 
ney of these wise men from the east, point him out 
as a king in some peculiar and pre-eminent sense. 
But that the King of Israel, or of the Jews, was 
no other than God, has been proved, chap. iv. 
sect, xxxiii. The Magians, then, must have con- 
sidered him who was born King of the Jews as a 

* Jahnii Arcluzologia Biblica, § 177. Harmer's Observations, 
cap. vi. vol. ii. Lond. 1808. Burder's Oriental Customs, No. 910. 
Lond. 1816. 



chap, vii.] a Proof of his Divinity. 341 

super-human being, and their worship of him must, 
consequently, have been a religious worship. It is 
no solid objection to this argument, to allege that 
the Magians were pagans, and therefore not likely 
to annex the notion of divinity to the title " King 
of the Jews since the same means, whatever they 
were, which gave them information of the birth, at 
that particular time, of the King of the Jews, 
would surely inform them of the meaning of that 
title. The Jews, moreover, had then an earthly 
king reigning over them, as the Magians well 
knew ; of course, they must have understood the 
new-born infant to be King of the Jews in a dif- 
ferent sense, which could only be in reference to 
his divinity. Secondly, it is improbable that the 
Magians would travel so far merely to pay a civil 
homage to a new-born child of a Jewish peasant. 
From whatever source their notions were derived, 
they must have considered him as something more 
than an ordinary babe ; this is evident from the 
whole of the transaction ; and, therefore, by the 
homage paid to him, they intended more than the 
expression of civil respect *. Thirdly, among the 
gifts they offered, were frankincense and myrrh, 
which are peculiarly appropriate presents to him as 
God ; and if they had not considered him as divine, 
they would have presented their gifts, not to him, 
but to his mother. Fourthly, the ancient Fathers 

* " Certe civilibus de causis non erat, cur tarn arduo itinere 
institute adorarent, mox domum redituri, regem dissitum et 
parvulum, ac non Herodem quoque." Bengel in loc. 



342 Divine Worship directed to Christ, [chap. vh. 

regarded this act of the Magians as an act of reli- 
gious reverence ; and as several of them lived before 
the Council of Nice, they probably had some tra- 
ditionary information in addition to the brief account 
in St. Matthew's Gospel*. 

IV. Matt, xxviii. 16, 17. " The eleven disciples 
went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus 
had appointed them. And when they saw him they 
worshipped him." This being after his resurrection, 
leaves little doubt that it was a religious adoration 
of him ; especially as we do not find any hint of his 
being worshipped by the Apostles previous to his 
death f . 

V. Luke xxiv. 51, 52. " It came to pass, while 
he blessed them, he was parted from them, and car- 
ried up into heaven : and they worshipped him, 
and returned to Jerusalem with great joy." This 
must have been divine worship, for it was paid to 
Jesus after he was parted from the Apostles, and 

* See Whitby and Suicer, Thesaur. torn. ii. p. 238. The 
visit of the Magians is a very remarkable transaction, and 
opens into a wide field of discussion. Who were they 1 From 
what country did they come? How came they by the know- 
ledge that, at the time of their visit, one was " born king of 
the Jews 1" What object had they in coming so far to worship 
the child Jesus? What was the star which guided them to the 
humble habitation of the holy child ? These questions natu- 
rally occur to the mind upon considering this part of the 
Gospel history; but though they would be matter for interest- 
ing inquiry, the investigation cannot be attempted in this, work. 

f See Rosenmuller. 



chap, vii.] a Proof of his Divinity. 343 

carried up into heaven. Nor can we suppose that 
they would offer any other than religious homage to 
their Lord, at the moment when they beheld such a 
visible display of majesty and power as his ascen- 
sion afforded. 

VI. John v. 23. " That all men should ho- 
nour the Son, even as they honour the Father. 
He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the 
Father which hath sent him." How are we to 
honour the Father ? Is it not by entertaining just 
sentiments of his matchless perfections ; by reverenc- 
ing him in our hearts, and rendering unto him the 
praises of our lips ? Can we honour him, without 
offering to him the incense of praise and adoration ? 
No ! And therefore, in the same manner are we to 
honour the Son : we are to reverence him for his 
boundless benevolence, and to adore him as our 
Lord and Saviour. When we speak of honouring 
the Father, it is impossible to abstract religious 
worship from the notion we annex to it ; we cannot 
honour him without worshipping him ; and in the 
same way, we are here told, the Son is to be 
honoured, viz. is to be worshipped # . 

But it is alleged that xaSw?, the word translated 
" even as," often signifies a general similitude only, 
and not absolute equality. This is very truef; 

* " Hoc verbum r^av, quando dicitur de Deo, non potest 
non exprimere cultum religiosum." Tittman, Meletem. Sac. in 
Joh. p. 213. 

+ Glass, Phil. Sac. p. 431. 



344 Divine Worship directed to Christ, [chap. vh. 

but the question is, not what the word taken by 
itself may possibly signify, but what it must signify 
as here introduced. Now, our Lord was accused of 
" making himself equal with God," (v. 18.) If 
the charge had been false, he would doubtless have 
positively and earnestly denied it. Instead of this, 
he institutes a parallel between the Father and him- 
self, between the Father's works and his own, and 
avers that " the Father hath committed all judgment 
to the Son, that (<W, to the end that,) all men 
should honour the Son even as (xaS-w?) they honour 
the Father." Taken in this connection, the par- 
ticle xaS-w? must clearly signify absolute equality. 
Why has the Father committed all judgment to the 
Son ? The answer is, he has done so for this ob- 
ject, that all men should honour the Son even as 
they honour the Father. If this does not imply an 
equality of honour, there is no connection in the 
discourse; the committing all judgment to the Son, 
and the reason given for it are at variance. It 
would be, in fact, to say, that the Father hath com- 
mitted all judgment to the Son, not that men might 
honour him even as they honour the Father, which 
accounts for this commission, but that the Son 
might have some degree of honour, though inferior 
to the Father. In this view, v. 23. has no connec- 
tion with the preceding verse ; on the contrary, 
taking the words according to their natural signifi- 
cation, to mean an equality of honour, the expres- 
sions are pertinent throughout, and the discourse 
coherent. 



chap, vii.] a Proof of his Divinity. 345 

Even admitting the particle here to imply general 
similitude only, would it have been consistent with 
the probity and integrity of our Lord, as a man, to 
declare that all men should pay to him similar 
honour to that which is due to the Father ? Would 
it have been compatible with the humble piety 
which adorned his character, to arrogate to himself 
an honour in any degree approaching that which 
belongs to God, if he had been a mere man ? " To 
honour," when applied to the Deity, is, as before 
observed, to pay him religious homage ; it necessarily 
includes divine worship ; and for any human being 
to assume this to himself, in any kind or degree, is 
blasphemy ; of any approach to which it would be 
profane to suspect the blessed Jesus. The decla- 
ration, then, " that men should honour the Son even 
as they honour the Father," however the terms may 
be brought down, must still include divine worship, 
and could not possibly have fallen from the lips of 
our Saviour had he not been really God *, 

VII. Acts i. 24. " And they prayed and said, 

* Some excellent remarks on this text may be found in Bull, 
Primitiva et Apostolica Traditio, cap. vi. § 16. et seq. Water- 
land, Defence, Qu. 19. Randolph, Vindication, P. II. p. 40. 
Veysie, Defence, p. 122. A valuable foreign writer thus trans- 
lates and comments upon the text : " Omnes adorare et colere 
oportet Filium eodem modo, quo Patrem colunt; qui Filium 
non colit, nec Patrem colit. Ita profecto loqui sine /?Aao"<pv3jU.ta 
et injuria maxima in Deum Patrem nullo modo potuisset, 
(quod de eo cogitare summae impietatis fuerit,) si inferior illo, 
aut merus homo esset." Tittman, Meletem. in Joh. Proleg, p. 9. 



346 Divine Worship directed to Christ, [chap. vn. 

Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, 
shew whether of these two thou hast chosen/' That 
this prayer was addressed to Christ is evident, be- 
cause he is mentioned immediately before this invo- 
cation, v. 21. ; because he is styled " Lord," which 
was his common appellation ; and because he was 
the proper Person to be invoked for directions in 
the choice of an Apostle to supply the place of the 
traitor Judas. The choice of an Apostle properly 
belonged to Christ, as the Head of the Church ; he 
claimed and exercised this right, while he remained 
on earth ; and it cannot be thought that his right in 
this respect was diminished after his , exaltation to 
the right-hand of God. " The very end of the 
" choice was," says Dr. Jamieson, " that one might 
" take part of this ministry and apostleship. But 
" if Jesus did not choose him, how could he be an 
" Apostle of Jesus, that is, one sent by him * ?" 
Our Saviour is here characterized as the Searcher 
of hearts ; a prerogative of which he is possessed 
as well as the Father. (Chap. v. sect, xxv.) 

VIII. Acts vii. 59, 60. " They stoned Stephen, 
calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus receive 
my spirit. And he kneeled down, and cried with a 
loud voice, Lord lay not this sin to their charge. 
And when he had said this, he fell asleep." It is to 
be observed, that there is nothing answering to the 

* Vindication of the Deity of Christ, vol. i. p. 314. See 
Dr. Hales, New Analysis, vol. ii. p. 1163. 



chap, vii.] a Proof of his Divinity. 347 

word God in the original text, which might be better 
rendered, " They stoned Stephen, invoking and 
saying, Lord Jesus," &c*. Here is a direct invoca- 
tion of Jesus Christ, by a man full of the Holy 
Ghost, and in like manner as the same Jesus, in 
similar circumstances, had invoked his Father. 
Jesus, therefore, is either possessed of real and pro- 
per divinity, or this holy proto-martyr died in an 
act of gross idolatry. 

Unitarians of these times endeavour to evade this 
conclusion by a piece of sophistry ingeniously ab- 
surd; namely, this address of Stephen to Jesus, 
whom he saw, does not authorize us to offer prayers 
to him, now that he is invisible. Mr. Wardlaw's 
reply is strong and conclusive : " It seems passing 
ie strange, that the circumstance of actual vision 
" should be considered by any, as at all altering 
ie the nature of the case. Are we to conclude, then, 
(e that a creature, a mere man, may, in particular 
" circumstances, be a proper object of prayer and 
<e religious worship ? that when seen he may be 
ff prayed to ; but when unseen, the prayer must be 
" withheld as idolatry ! Does the mere circum- 
" stance of his being visible impart a transient 
" divinity, and the momentary title to the honours 
" of Godhead — a divinity and a title, lasting only 
" while the vision lasts? Can visibility or invi- 

* " Lapidabant Stephanum invocantem et dicentem, &c. 
So Syriac, and almost all modern translators and commenta- 
tors, and is evidently required by the Greek idiom. Kuinoel, 
in defence of this translation, appeals to Revel, xxii. 20. 



348 Divine Worship directed to Christ, [chap. Vh. 

" sibility change the nature of a creature, deifying 
" for the time a mere son of man ? Surely, the 
" weakness and inconsistency of such ground as 
" this,, must be felt by every mind that remains 
€e open to conviction*." 

It is also alleged that this solitary and inconsi- 
derable instance of Stephen's offering a short ejacu- 
latory address to Christ, is no warrant for us to 
follow the example. This objection is admirably 
answered by a learned and capacious mind. " Why 
" is it inconsiderable ? Is it because it was only an 
" ejaculation ? Ejaculations are often prayers of 
" the most fervent kind; the most expressive of 
" self-abasement and adoration. Is it for its brevity 
" that it is inconsiderable ? What then is the pre- 
" cise length of words, which is requisite to make a 
" prayer an act of worship ? Was this petition 
" preferred on an occasion of distress, on which a 
" Divinity might naturally be invoked ? Was it a 
t( petition for a succour, which none but a Divinity 
" could grant ? If this was the case, it was surely 
" an act of worship. Is the situation of the wor- 
" shipper the circumstance which lessens the au- 
" thority of his example ? You suppose, perhaps, 
" some consternation of his faculties, arising from 
" distress and fear. The history justifies no such 
" suspicion. It describes the utterance of the final 
" prayer, as the deliberate act of one who knew 

* Discourses on the Socinian Controversy, p. 128. See also 
Dean Magee, On Atonement, vol. ii. Append, p. 461. 



chap. vn.J a Proof of his Divinity. 349 

" his situation, and possessed his understanding. 
" After praying for himself, he kneels down to 
" pray for his persecutors : and such was the com- 
" posure with which he died, although the manner 
" of his death was the most tumultuous and terrify- 
" ing, that, as if he had expired quietly upon his 
" bed, the sacred historian says, that ' he fell 
" asleep.' If he was himself, you cannot justify 
' 1 his prayer to Christ upon any principle that might 
" not equally justify you, or me, in praying to the 
*' blessed Stephen. If St. Stephen, in the full pos- 
" session of his faculties, prayed to him who is no 
" God ; why do we reproach the pious Romanist, 
" when he chaunts the litany of his saints." " Jesus 
" therefore, was the God whom the dying martyr 
" invocated in his last agonies ; when men are apt 
" to pray, with the utmost seriousness, to him whom 
" they conceive the mightiest to save V 

IX. 2 Cor. xii. 8. " For this thing I besought 
the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me." 
That by " the Lord" is here meant Christ, is evi- 
dent from the next verse, " And he said unto me, 
My grace is sufficient for thee ; for my strength is 
made perfect in weakness. Most gladly, therefore, 
will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power 
of Christ may rest upon me." It may likewise be 
added, that all the visible or audible manifestations 
of God to mankind, have been by the Son ; and as 



* Bishop Horsley, Tracts, p. 233 and 235. 



350 Divine Worship directed to Christ, [chap. til. 

there was either a visible or audible manifestation to 
Paul of the Person invoked, that Person must have 
been Christ. 

Unitarians do not deny that this is a prayer to 
Jesus Christ, but they allege, that he was sensibly 
present with the Apostle, for he cites the very words 
of our Lord's reply. But this, it is urged, is no 
warrant for others who are not indulged with the 
same privilege*. It is not certain that Christ 
appeared to the Apostle ; the communication was 
more probably by an audible voice. But admitting 
a visible appearance, this objection leads to the 
absurdity of supposing that a mere man may be 
prayed to when visible, but not when invisible; 
which has been sufficiently exposed in the preceding 
section. Consider what is implied in this prayer 
with respect to the individual case of St. Paul. He 
supplicates his crucified Master to remove from him 
an oppressive affliction, which he calls " a thorn in 
the flesh, a messenger of Satan to buffet him ;" but 
would he, in such a calamity, address a Being whom 
he did not conceive omnipotent to save ? or could 
any power, less than Almighty, be adequate to the 
removal of the affliction ? Yet St. Paul, in the 
bitterness of his anguish, besought the Lord Jesus 
thrice that it might depart from him, and must 
therefore have believed his Master able to accom- 
plish what omnipotence alone could perform. Our 
Saviour's answer equally infers Almighty power. 

* Belshaii), Calm Inquiry, p. 240. 



chap, vii.] a Proof of his Divinity. 351 

" My grace or favour is sufficient for thee ; for 
my strength (<Jwa/*i?, power) in the conversion of 
the world is made perfect, is displayed in the weak- 
ness of the instruments I employ for that purpose 
an answer implying that his power was sufficient to 
vanquish every obstacle to the establishment of his 
religion, and that the heavenly treasure of the 
Gospel, though committed to " earthen vessels/' 
(ch. iv. 7.) to men apparently unequal to the task, 
should, through his invisible operation, be diffused 
throughout the whole world. 

X. Ephes. v. 19. " Speaking to yourselves in 
psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, singing and 
making melody in your hearts to the Lord :" that 
js, to the Father, as is plain from the following- 
verse, says Macknight : but as u the Lord" is the 
usual appellation of Christ, and as we know from 
undoubted authority, that psalms and hymns were 
sung to Christ, in the assemblies of the primitive 
Christians*, there can be little doubt that he is 
spoken of in this verse. It has been considered as 
referring to Jesus Christ by the generality of com- 
mentators. 

In the parallel passage, Col. iii. 16. instead of 
" Lord," Griesbach admits " God" into his text, 

* Auctor. ap Euseb. H. E. lib. v. § 28. or, in Routh, Reli- 
quiae Sacrce, vol. ii. p. 7. with the note, p. 21. Ep. Synod, ad 
JDionys. apud Routh, ibid. p. 481. Pliny, Ep. ad Traj. on which 
see Mosheim, De Rebus Christ, ante Const aniinum, cent. i. 
§ 47. not. u. Bull, Opera, p. 353. 



352 Divine Worship directed to Christ, [chap. vit. 

upon what I take to be adequate authority ; and 
some Unitarians argue from this that the Apostle 
meant God in Ephesians *. The argument may be 
retorted ; as our Lord is spoken of in Ephes. v. 19. 
and in the parallel place, Col. iii. 16. we find the 
Person to whom these hymns were to be addressed 
was God, we might infer that Christ was truly God. 

XI. Phil. ii. 10. « That at the name of Jesus 
every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and 
things in earth, and things under the earth ; and 
that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is 
Lord, to the glory of God the Father. 5 ' The phrase 
" name of Jesus," is either put for the eminence 
and dignity of Jesus, or after the manner of the 
Hebrews, signifies the person of Jesus, Jesus him- 
self. To Jesus, then, every knee must bow, an 
expression undoubtedly denoting religious adora- 
tion -j\ The same phrase, K&pmuv y6w, to bow the 
knee, occurs in three other places of the New Tes- 
tament, in all of which it signifies an act of devout 
veneration and worship ; as Rom. xi. 4. " I have 
reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have 
not bowed the knee to Baal Rom xiv. 1L " As I 
live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me;" 
Ephes. iii. 14. " For this cause, I bow my knees to 

* Dr. Carpenter's Letters to Mr. Veysie, p. 228. 

t Schleusner thus explains xupnvM yovaTsc. rm, adorare ali- 
quem i seu cultum religiosum alicui prcestare ; and he translates 
Phil. ii. 10. " lit Jesum flexis genibus omnes venerentur." See 
also Rosenmuller, Scholia in loc. 



chap, vii.] a Proof of his Divinity. 353 

the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." This mean- 
ing of the phrase,, no doubt, originated from a prac- 
tice customary among the Jews of praying in a 
kneeling posture. Solomon, at the consecration of 
the temple, " kneeled down upon his knees/' and 
addressed the God of heaven, (2 Chron. vi. 13.) ; 
Daniel 44 kneeled upon his knees three times a day, 
and prayed/' (Dan. vi. 10.); and many other in- 
stances of the like custom are mentioned in the 
sacred Writings, Ezra ix. 5. Ps. xcv. 6. Luke xxii. 
41. Acts vii, 60. ix. 40. xx. 36. xxi. 5. No posture 
is more expressive of the deep humility and self- 
abasement, which become frail creatures of the 
dust, when pouring out their supplications before 
the throne of grace ; and the custom of kneeling 
in prayer, has obtained from the earliest period of 
the Christian church *.-— This passage of Philip- 

* Bingham, Christian Antiq. lib. xiii. cap. viii. § 4. The 
Greeks often prayed in a kneeling posture, (Potter, Grecian 
Antiq. lib. ii. cap. v.) but the Romans, more frequently, if I 
mistake not, prayed standing or in prostration. 

It is enjoined by the eighteenth canon of our church, that, 
when Jesus Christ is mentioned, due and lowly reverence shall 
be done by all present; and it is customary in most congrega- 
tions to bow at the name of Jesus. Many defend the custom 
by Phil. ii. 10. (Wheatly, On the Com. Pr. p. 149. ed. Oxon.) 
but perhaps without sufficient grounds. It is, however, " a 
" harmless ceremony," to use the words of the judicious 
Hooker, " which, as there is no man constrained to use ; so 
" we know no reason wherefore any man should yet imagine it 
" an insufferable evil. It sheweth a reverend regard to the Son 
" of God above other messengers, although speaking as from 
" God also. And against infidels, Jews, Arians, who derogate 

Aa 



354 Divine Worship directed to Christ, [chap. vii. 

pians, then, contains an express injunction that all 
intelligent creatures should reverence and worship 
Jesus. 

XII. 1 Thess. Hi. 11—13. " Now, God himself 
and our Father (i. e, he who is our God and Father, 
according to Mr. Sharp's canon,) and our Lord 
Jesus Christ, direct our way unto you. And the 
Lord (Jesus Christ, as is evident from the former 
verse,) make you to increase and abound in love 
one towards another, and towards all men, even as 
we do towards you ; to the end he may establish 
your hearts unblameable in holiness before God 
even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus 
Christ with all his saints/' Here is a direct and 
immediate address to our Lord Jesus Christ. It is 
in vain to object that it is only a wish ; for what is 
a wish made to the Deity that he would bestow 
certain favours, but a prayer ? Is it not the devout 
aspiration of the heart to Him whose aid is im- 
plored ? And how can the fervour of prayer and 
entreaty be more effectually expressed than by the 
utterance of such a wish ? To explain it as a wish 
and not a prayer, is, in fact, endeavouring" to esta- 
blish a distinction without a difference, (sect, xxiii.); 
and, whether it be denominated the one or the other, 
it is addressed equally to the Father and the Son. 

This prayer, which is evidently addressed to 
Christ, gives rise to some important reflections. 

" from the honour of Jesus Christ, such ceremonies are thus 
" profitable." Ecclesiast. Polity, lib. v. § 30. 



chap. vii. J a Proof of his Divinity. 355 

First, he is invoked equally with God the Father ; 
must we not then infer an equality of power ? Who 
would not be shocked with the impiety, were any 
one now to pray, that God the Father and St. Paul 
may direct his way to a certain place ? Would it 
not have been equally impious in St. Paul to prefer 
a similar petition to the Father and Jesus Christ, if 
the latter had been a mere man ? The inference is 
obvious ; Christ being joined with the Father in 
this address, must be God. 

Secondly, the Apostle, in supplicating our Lord 
so to interpose, that he might have a prosperous 
journey to Thessalonica, must have supposed that 
the affairs, on which this depended, were under his 
direction ; for if Christ had not the government of 
this world, he could not accomplish the thing prayed 
for. The Apostle also requests the Lord Jesus to 
make the Thessalonians " to increase and abound * 
in love one toward another, and towards all men/' 
which would be a most unreasonable request, except 
upon the supposition that the means of effecting 
this were at the disposal of our Lord. But if Jesus 
can supply those secret influences which operate 
upon the mind, and can mould the affections of the 
heart to his will, he must be in power almighty, and 
in nature God* # 

XIII. 2 Thess. ii. 16, 17. " Now, our Lord 
Jesus Christ himself, and God even our Father, 

* See Macknight and Chandler, whose Paraphrase and 
Notes are well worth perusal. 

Aa2 



356 Divine Worship directed to Christ, [chap, vii. 

which hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting 
consolation, and good hope through grace, comfort 

YOUR HEARTS, AND STAB LIS H YOU IN EVERY GOOD 

word and work/' The Father and the Son are 
here equally invoked for spiritual blessings, which 
God alone can bestow. The remarks above are 
applicable to this text; only here Christ in the 
order of the address, is put before God the Father; 
which proves that St. Paul considered him as no in- 
ferior Divinity, but as co-equal and co-omnipotent 
with the Father, both one God, blessed for ever. 

XIV. 2 Thess. iii. 5. " The Lord direct your 
hearts into the love of God, and into the patient 
waiting for Christ." 

XV. 2 Thess. iii. 16. " Now, the Lord of 
peace himself give you peace always, by all means. 
The Lord be with you all." Dr. Clarke says, " It 
" is ambiguous whether this be spoken of Christ, or 
" of God. From the parallel places, Rom. xv. 33. 
" xvi. 20. 2 Cor. xiii. 11. Phil. iv. 9. and 1 Thess. 
" v. 23. it should seem rather to be meant of God 
" the Father These texts are irrelevant, as in 
every one of them the expression is God, @£of, not 
Lord, Kvgios, which is the usual appellation of our 
Saviour ; and he is here evidently called " the Lord 
of Peace/' in allusion to Isaiah ix. 6. where he is 
foretold under the character of the ee Prince of 
Peace/' The last clause is a prayer founded on 
Christ's promise, Matt, xxviii. 20. " Lo, I am with 



* Script. Doct. No. 731. 



chap, vii.] a Proof of his Divinity, 357 

you always, even unto the end of the world and 
affords a presumptive proof that Christ is the Per- 
son addressed in this prayer. — In the passages re- 
ferred to by Dr. Clarke the Father is styled the 
" God of Peace/' and as Christ is here called the 
" Lord of Peace/' and as the same supplication is 
made to each, we are surely warranted to infer their 
identity as to essence. 

XVI. 2 Tim. iv. 22. " The Lord Jesus Christ 
be with thy spirit." This is a prayer that the 
Lord Jesus Christ would confirm and support 
Timothy, who had been appointed Bishop of 
Ephesus, in the discharge of his arduous duties # . 
Some doubt, perhaps, may exist whether this 
prayer be immediately addressed to Jesus Christ, 
and if it is not, it certainly cannot belong to 
the question we are examining, whether prayer be 
addressed to our Lord ; but it nevertheless implies 
his divinity. How could the Lord Jesus Christ be 
with the spirit of Timothy otherwise than by the 

* That Timothy was appointed Bishop of the Ephesian 
church, see Bingham, Christian Antiq. lib. ii. cap. i. § 4. Cal- 
met's and Robinson's Dictionaries, Archbishop Potter, Discourse 
on Church Government, cap. iv. p. 129. Hughes, Prel. Diss, to 
St. Chrysostom de Sacerdotio, Diss. II.— Lord Barrington, Mis- 
cellanea Sacra, vol. i. p. 153. and Witsius, Miscel. Sac. vol. ii. 
exercit. xvi. argue very weakly against the opinion that Timothy 
was Bishop of Ephesus. Dr. Campbell's objections are ably 
refuted by Bishop Skinner in his Primitive Truth and Order 
vindicated, cap. ii. p. 180. The opposers of episcopacy should 
read and digest the profound Hooker's seventh book of his 
Ecclesiastical Polity. 



358 Divine Worship directed to Christ, [chap. vh. 

secret influences of the Holy Spirit ? The Being 
who is with the spirit of a man, who can operate 
by invisible means upon the mind, must be omni- 
scient and omnipresent ; and if he be supplicated 
to influence the mind in any particular way, the 
person so praying, must suppose the Being he 
addresses capable of granting the request, which 
implies omnipotence. It cannot be objected with 
any shew of reason, that " the Lord Jesus Christ/* 
is put metonymically for the doctrines of Christ, as 
'O Kvgw *tifim Xgio-Tos is a title of our Lord fre- 
quently occurring, and invariably denoting the per- 
son of our Lord *. 

XVII. Heb. i. 6. * When he bringeth in the 
first-begotten into the World, he saith, And let all 

THE ANGELS OF GoD WORSHIP HIM." It is of no 

moment, as far as regards our present inquiry, whe- 
ther this be a quotation from Deut. xxxii. 43. ac- 
cording to the LXX. or from Psalm xcvii. 7 +. It 
is certainly cited by the Apostle to prove Christ's 
superiority to the angels. How transcendantly 
great, then, must that Person be, whom the angelic 
choir are to reverence and worship £ ? The usual 

* This title occurs above eighty times in Griesbach's edi- 
tion ; and the only places which can, by any possibility, allow 
the supposition of its being used metonymically are Rom. xiii. 14. 
2 Cor. iv. 5. Col. ii. 6. which, however, is not the case, as may 
be seen by consulting the commentators. 

+ See the commentators, particularly Peirce and Surenhusius. 

J " Si angeli Regem ilium maximum adorare debent ; ergo 
sunt illo inferiores." Rosenmuller in loc. 



chap, vii.] a Proof of his Divinity. 359 

objection will not here apply, that irfoo-xwtu means 
civil homage by prostration ; the worship of the 
angels must be a pure, spiritual worship ; and as it 
cannot be supposed that the adoration of a created 
being would be prescribed to them, we must natu- 
rally infer that the Son, whom they are commanded 
to worship, is really God. 

The Unitarian gloss is, u Let all former prophets 
and messengers of God acknowledge him as their 
superior *" Former prophets and messengers, 
whose earthly remains are mouldering in the dust, 
can only do this in the unseen world of spirits ; but 
how is this acknowledgment to be made? The 
homage they pay must be a spiritual homage, which 
it requires all Mr. Belsham's metaphysics to distin- 
guish from actual worship. How can they acknow- 
ledge a superior, and not regard him, in that very 
acknowledgment, with spiritual reverence ? Is it 
rational to suppose, that the prophets and messen- 
gers of God are, in a future state, to own a pec- 
cable man like themselves, to be their superior? 
And why their superior? If it be answered, Be- 
cause he was more highly favoured of God, and 
made the instrument of delivering a more perfect 
revelation, the question recurs, how is this con- 
sistent with perfect and eternal justice ? This 
gloss, then, if it have any meaning, serves to con- 
firm the conclusion I am endeavouring to esta- 
blish. But, further, this gloss rests upon the false 

* Belsham, Calm Inquiry, p. 234. Unitarian Version in loc. 



360 Divine Worship directed to Christ, [chap. vii. 

assumption, that by " the angels of God/' is meant 
the prophets and messengers of God. The word 
ayysXoi, angels, in this chapter, necessarily means 
angelic beings, for they are described as " minister- 
ing spirits, sent forth to minister for them who 
shall be heirs of salvation/' (v. 12.); and of them 
it is said, " who maketh his angels spirits, and his 
ministers a flame of fire" (v. 7.) ; which can only 
apply to these superior intelligences. In ch. ii. 7. 9. 
Jesus is said to be made " a little lower than the 
angels," which surely cannot mean that he was a 
little lower than the other prophets of God; the 
term must, then, in these verses be understood in its 
* literal import, and how can it be doubted that the 
Apostle uses the word in the same sense through- 
out ? If the term is not to be taken according to 
its literal import, he uses three terms to denote the 
same thing ; namely, prophets, angels, and minis- 
tering spirits ; an incorrectness of style of which 
the Apostle ought not, without the strongest evi- 
dence, to be accused. Besides, though the term 
" angel" is sometimes applied to men ; yet as far as 
respects the usage of the New Testament, " angel 
of God/' I think, never is, and there can be no 
question that " angels of God," in the plural, is an 
appellation always, in the New Testament, denot- 
ing the angelic inhabitants of heaven *. 

* The phrase " angels of God," besides the place in ques- 
tion, only occurs in the New Testament, Matt. xxii. 30. 
Luke xii. 8, 9. xv. 10. John i. 51. in all which texts it un- 
doubtedly means angels properly so called. " Angel of God," 



chap, vii.] a Proof of his Divinity. 



361 



XVIII. 1 <lotm vt 14, 15. " This is the confi- 
dence we have in hinr, that, if we ask any thing 

ACCORDING TO HIS WILL, HE HEARETH US ' and if WC 

know that he heareth us whatsoever we ask, we 
know that we have the petitions that we desired 
of him." It is not quite certain, it must be acknow- 
ledged, that this relates to the Son of God ; yet the 
context renders it highly probable, and if it refer to 
our Lord, there can be no question that, in the 
opinion of St. John, prayers ought to be addressed 
to him. Chap. iii. 22. seems rather to support its 
application to the Father ; much stress, therefore, 
cannot be laid upon this text. 

XIX. Revel, v. 8—13. " And when he had 
taken the book the four beasts, and four-and-twenty 

in the singular, only occurs Acts xxvii. 23. in the proper sense, 
and Gal. iv. 4. where St. Paul says, " Ye received me as an 
angel of God ;" but the context shews that St. Paul is not so 
called. In the Old Testament, " the angel or angels of God," 
always means the heavenly angels, with, as>far as I can find, 
only three exceptions, viz. 2 Chron. xxxvi. 16. CD'H^Nrr 
rendered in E. T. " the messengers of God ;" Hag. i. 13. *]K^D 
mn», in E. T. " Then spake Haggai, the Lord's messenger ;" 
Mai. ii. 7. " He (i. e. the priest) is the messenger of the Lord 
of Hosts/' nisoy mn> *]^d. 

In the two first chapters of Hebrews, the term ayy&a occurs 
nine times ; the first six of which it is translated in the Unit- 
arian Version, " messengers," in the other three, " angels." 
This glaring inconsistency, and the absurdity of the rendering 
of this misnamed Improved Version, are admirably exposed 
by Dr. Laurence, Critical Reflections, cap. 7. and Mr. Nares, 
Remarks, p. 116. et seq. 



362 Divine Worship directed to Christ, [chap. vii. 

elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one 
of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which 
are the prayers of the saints. And they sung a new 
song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and 
to open the seals thereof; for thou wast slain, and 
hast redeemed us to God by thy blood, out of every 
kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation ; and 
hast made us unto our God kings and priests ; and we 
shall reign on the earth. And I beheld, and I heard 
the voice of many angels round about the throne, 
and the beasts, and the elders ; and the number of 
them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and 
thousands of thousands ; saying, with a loud voice, 
Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, 
and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, 
and glory, and blessing. And every creature which 
is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, 
and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them 
heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, 
and power, be unto Him that sitteth upon the 
throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever %" 
Evident it is that our Lord is, in this magnificent 
description, represented under the emblem of a 
Lamb ; under which image he was pre-figured by 
the sacrifice of a lamb in the daily service of the 
temple f, and in various places of the New Testa- 
ment is denominated a Lamb or the Lamb of God 

* Griesbach's text is not materially different. 
+ Exod. xxix. 42. Jennings, Jewish Antiq. lib. i. cap. v. 
% John i. 29. Acts viii. 32. 1 Pet. i. 19. and often in the 
Revelations. 



chap, vh.] a Proof of his Divinity, 363 

He is here described as equally sharing in the praises 
offered to the Father " that sitteth upon the throne/' 
which cannot be said, without profanation, of any 
creature ; and the whole inhabitants of heaven, 
saints and angels, are represented as offering divine 
worship and adoration to our Redeemer *. 

To this decisive apocalyptic testimony to the 
adoration of the Son, I only find three objections 
which are at all deserving of notice f. First, that 
the authority of the book of Revelations is doubtful. 
It is much to be lamented that such eminent writers 
as Less and Michaelis should give countenance to 
this opinion : but after the learned and able vindi- 
cation by Archdeacon Woodhouse, its canonicity, it 
may be presumed, will never again be called in 
question. Secondly, that the whole scene is vision- 
ary, and it is unreasonable to argue from visions to 
realities. To me such a mode of argumentation 

* " This song is a hymn to the Redeemer, in which all crea- 
" tion joins. The cherubim, as before, begin the song ; the 
'* elders unite their voices, their harps, and their incense. Such 
* praises we now sing to Christ in the ancient hymn called Te 
" Deum. Such were sung in the early ages of the church, in 
" the times immediately following those of this vision ; whereof 
" the younger Pliny gives testimony in his famous letter to 
" Trajan. Such were sung in the succeeding times of Origen. 
" Such also in the days of Eusebius, who deduces the wor- 
" ship of Christ from the hymns and psalms of the Old Testa- 
" ment, through all the venerable Fathers of the church to his 
" own times." Woodhouse, on this Place of the Apocalypse. 

+ Mr. Belsham does indeed propose six arguments, (Inquiry y 
p. 238.) but most of them are unimportant, or have been 
answered in the foregoing pages. 



364 Divine Worship directed to Christ, [chap. vii. 

appears neither unreasonable nor inconclusive. The 
secrets of the invisible world can perhaps only be 
made known to man through the medium of various 
emblems ; and the symbolical representation of them 
being designed to convey information on subjects so 
much above our comprehension, must accord with 
the truth and reality. That this is the case is evi- 
dent from the circumstance of the eternal God being 
symbolically represented as seated upon a throne 
and receiving praise and adoration, which must be 
agreeable to the reality : and as Christ is, in the 
same manner, symbolically represented as receiving 
praise and adoration, I conclude that this equally 
accords with the truth and reality. Thirdly, that 
the association of Christ with God, in this scenic 
exhibition, no more authorizes the worship of him, 
than it does the divine worship of the king, when it 
is said 1 Chron. xxix. 20. "And all the congregation 
blessed the Lord God of their fathers, and bowed 
down their heads, and worshipped the Lord and 
the King." This objection, though plausible, is 
easily answered. The word used by the historian 
means to bow down, to prostrate oneself; and the 
clause would be better translated, — " and bowed 
their heads, and prostrated themselves before Jeho- 
vah and the King/' i. e. they paid due homage to 
both, to God religious reverence, to the king civil 
respect *. The sense is well expressed in the Syriac 

* HrWttW from nnttf, to fall down, to prostrate oneself, im- 
plying as well civil respect as religious homage, (Taylor's Heb. 



chap, vii.] a Proof of his Divinity. 365 

version,, " they fell down and worshipped the Lord, 
and also blessed king David." Another passage 
referred to by Socinian writers admits an equally 
easy solution. In 2 Chron. xxxi. 8. it is said, 
" when Hezekiah and the princes came, and saw 
the heaps, they blessed Jehovah and his people 
Israel." The word used by the historian is barak, 
which denotes as well the salutations bestowed upon 
men, as the blessings offered to the Supreme Being; 
and though it is referred both to Jehovah and his 
people Israel, there is no difficulty in distinguishing 
the sense in which it is applied to each *. 

XX. Revel, vii. 9, 10. " I beheld, and lo, a 
great multitude, which no man could number, of 
all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, 
stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, 

Concordance.) The worship of any being but God is so clearly 
forbidden in the Old Testament, that nnu? being here applied 
to express the homage of the people, both to God and the 
king, must consequently be used in its general sense, and 
should be so translated. Le Clerc, in his note, thus literally 
renders it, " Inclinaverunt se et prostraverunt Jehovce et Regi; 
" quos tamen dissimili prorsus cultu adficiebant. Sed mos 
" erat Orientis non aliter salutare Reges, quam Numina adora- 
" bantur." The Interlinear Version is to the same effect. The 
LXX. use the word irpocrxwsa, of the same extensive import as 
the Hebrew. See D. Jo. H. Michaelis, Annot. Uberiores in 
loc. 

* D. Jo. H. Michaelis, Annot. Uberiores in loc. and the 
Hebrew Lexicons. 



366 Divine Worship directed to Christ, [chap. vii.' 

clothed with white robes and palms in their hands ; 
and cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to 
our God, which sitteth upon the throne, and unto 
the Lamb." The observations in the last section 
are applicable to this. 

XXI. Revel, xxii. 20. " He which testifieth 
these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. 
Even so, come, Lord Jesus ;" that is, as Lowman 
paraphrases it, u accomplish thy promises in their 
order; and finally crown the faith, patience, and 
constancy of thy servants with eternal life/ 9 Nothing 
can be plainer than that this is a prayer directly 
and immediately addressed to Christ. 

XXII. In the sacred Writings are several Dox- 
ologies addressed to Jesus Christ, which cannot be 
justified from the charge of idolatry, were he only 
a human prophet. Thus Rom. ix. 5. " — of whom, 
as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over 
all, God blessed for ever/' This text is examined 
and vindicated, chap. ii. sect. iv. 

2 Tim. iv. 18. " The Lord shall deliver me from 
every evil work, and will preserve me unto his hea- 
venly kingdom : to whom be glory for ever and 
ever. Amen." The context shews that this is 
addressed to the Lord Jesus. 

Heb. xiii. 21. " — through Jesus Christ, to whom 
be glory for ever and ever. Amen." Jesus Christ 
being the immediate antecedent to w, to whom, there 



chap, vil] a Proof of his Divinity. 367 

can be no doubt of this referring* to him. And for 
this reason, we cannot question that the following 
text is to be referred to our Lord. 

1 Pet. iv. 11. " — that God in all things may be 
glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise 

AND DOMINION FOR EVER AND EVER. AMEN." 

2 Pet. iii. 18. " But grow in grace, and in the 
knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. 

To HIM BE GLORY, BOTH NOW AND FOR EVER. AMEN." 

There is no ambiguity in this text : the concluding 
clause undeniably refers to Christ. 

Revel, i. 5, 6. " Unto him that loved us, and 
washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath 
made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; 
to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. 
Amen/' 

When we consider the great difference between 
these Doxologies and the commendations but spa- 
ringly given in the Scriptures to mere men ; the 
serious and reverential manner in which they are 
introduced ; and the superlative praise they convey, 
so far surpassing what humanity can deserve, we 
cannot but suppose that the Being, to whom they 
refer, is really divine. The ascription of eternal 
glory, and everlasting dominion, if addressed to any 
creature, however exalted, would be idolatrous and 
profane. It must also be remembered that similar 
Doxologies are addressed to God the Father, as 
Rom. xvi. 27. 1 Tim. i. 17. vi. 16. Jude 25. and, 
unless Christ were God, it is not to be believed, that 
the same praises would be ascribed to him as to the 



368 Divine Worship directed to Christ, [chap. vii. 

Father. The Apostles, to the fervour of piety, 
joined a sound and masculine judgment ; and they 
would have abhorred the profanation of ascribing 
to a creature the glory which is alone due to the 
immortal and immaculate Creator. When Jesus 
Christ, therefore, is the subject of their Doxologies 
which imply eternity and omnipotence, and which 
are likewise addressed to the Father, the conclusion 
that Christ is God cannot reasonably be contro- 
verted. 

XXIII. Rom. i. 7. " To all that be in Rome, 
beloved of God, called to be saints ; Grace to you, 
and peace from God our Father, and the Lord 
Jesus Christ." And the same apostle, St. Paul, be- 
gins all his Epistles, excepting that to the Hebrews, 
with imploring the like blessings from God the 
Father and the Lord Jesus Christ; 1 Cor. i. 3. 
2 Cor. i. 2. Gal. i. 3. Ephes. i. 2. Phil. i. 2. Col. i. 2. 
" from the Lord Jesus Christ," is however omitted 
by Griesbach. 1 Thess. i. I. (see Griesbach.) 
2 Thess. i. 2. 1 Tim. i. 2. 2 Tim. i. 2. Tit. i. 4. 
Philem. i. 3. In his first Epistle to the Corinthians, 
he, in the conclusion, thus prays : " The grace 
of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you;" and his 
second Epistle to the same ends with these words, 
" The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the 
love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, 
be with you all. Amen." (Chap. ii. sect, vii.) His 
Epistle to the Ephesians concludes in the same 
manner, " Peace be to the brethren, and love with 



chap, vir.] a Proof of his Divinity. 369 

faith, from God the Father, and the Lord Jesus 
Christ. " St. John also, in his second Epistle, v. 3. 
writes, " Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from 
God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, 
the Son of the Father, in truth and love." 

One cannot but suspect a want of candour in the 
mind that can peruse the texts here referred to, and 
not acknowledge that the author, while he wrote 
them, was impressed with a firm conviction, that 
Jesus Christ is a proper object of religious worship. 
Of every one of these texts it may be said, " Whe- 
" ther it be a blessing or a prayer, it implies that 
" religious worship is due to Him, in whose name, 
" if a blessing, it is pronounced; or to whom, if a 
" prayer, it is directed To suppose that a mere 
man would be thus associated with the almighty 
Father of all, by an Apostle, in imploring grace, 
peace, and mercy to be with the Christian converts, 
would be an impiety of which the most abandoned 
would shudder to be guilty. Grace, peace, and 
mercy, are spiritual blessings, which, it is universally 
allowed, can only be supplied by the ineffable opera- 
tion of the Godhead; and as the Apostle suppli- 
cates for them equally from God the Father, and 
the Lord Jesus Christ, impartial reason infers that 
they are equal in essence and perfections. 

Nor will it alter the nature of this conclusion, 
should these passages be considered, as Unitarians 
are fond of representing them, in the light of wishes. 



* Dr. Mant, Academical Sermons, p. 68. 

B b 



370 Divine Worship directed to Christ, [chap. vii. 

A wish preferred to the Deity, as before observed, 
is, in effect, a prayer, (sect, xii.) It implies an 
ability in the person to whom it is made, of per- 
forming the wish. " I may innocently wish," says 
Mr. Belsham, " that a person in power may grant 
" an office to a friend, to ask for which, if the per- 
" son were present, might or might not be proper, 
" according to circumstances; but to pray to hirn 
" for it when he is absent, with an expectation that 
" he will hear and grant the request, would be 
" downright idolatry *.." True ; but the very wish 
implies that the person in power is able to grant 
hat office. In like manner, when St. Paul wished ; 
supposing the passages just cited to be wishes, that 
the new converts might receive grace, peace, and 
mercy, from the Lord Jesus Christ, he must have 
supposed in him an ability to grant these blessings. 
If St. Paul had wished for spiritual blessings from 
a being whom he believed incapable of granting 
them, it would have been a most flagrant absurdity; 
hence these wishes of the Apostle must have been 
founded on the belief that our Lord was able to 
comply with them, which is, in fact, tacitly attribut- 
ing to him essential divinity, since it is in the power 
of God alone to bestow spiritual blessings. The 
Apostolical supplications, therefore, for grace, peace, 
and mercy from God the Father and the Lord Jesus 
Christ, whether we chuse to denominate them wishes 
or prayers,, evince incontestably the deity of om 



* Calm Inquiry, p. 240, 



chap, vir.] a Proof of his Divinity. 371 

Saviour, and the consequent duty of presenting re- 
ligious addresses to him as well as to the Father. 

XXIV. Not only does St. Paul implore grace 
and mercy from our blessed Saviour, but likewise 
addresses thanksgiving to him ; " I thank Christ 
Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he 
counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry," 
(1 Tim. i. 12.) The reason of the Apostle's re- 
turning thanks was, that he was appointed to the 
ministry, and empowered to fulfil it; but if Jesus 
bad been a mere man, would he have thanked him 
for this so many years after Jesus had suffered 
death * ? Would not his grateful thanks have 
rather been addressed to God? St. Paul adds 
that Christ " had enabled him" to fulfil that minis- 
try. Now, he could not be enabled to execute that 
office without inspiration, miracles, and other spiri- 
tual gifts, which consequently the Apostle here attri- 
butes to our Lord, who is therefore God, since none 
but God can confer these gifts. 

XXV. St. Paul makes use of the name of Jesus 
in adjurations; as 1 Thess. v. 27. " I charge you 
by the Lord," &c. ; Rom. ix. 1. " I say the truth in 
Christ, I lie not;" so 2 Cor. xii. 19. Phil. ii. 19. 24. 
1 Tim. ii. 7. (where, however, cc in Christ" is omitted 

* The first Epistle to Timothy is supposed by many to have 
been written in the year 64. Bishop Tomline, Theology , P. II. 
cap. xviii. Lardner, History of the Apostles and Evangelists, 
cap. xii. § 5. 

B b3 



872 Divine Worship directed to Christ, [chap. vir. 

by Griesbach.) These expressions intimate that,, 
according* to the belief of St. Paul, Jesus Christ 
heard his adjurations, which implies ubiquity, and 
that he had the power to punish if they were em- 
ployed to attest a falsehood, which implies omni- 
potence. No person of common sense would, in 
a solemn manner, call upon a dead man to witness 
the truth of his declarations ; the Apostle, then, 
would not have used this form of adjuration, which 
carries with it the nature and obligation of an oath, 
unless he had believed the Lord Jesus to be present, 
though invisible, and able to chastise the daring 
violator of truth. 

XXVI. The invocation of our Lord is sanc- 
tioned by the practice of the converts in the apos- 
tolic age. St. Paul addresses his first Epistle to the 
Corinthians, " To them that are sanctified in Christ 
Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every 

ELACE CALL UPON THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST OUR 

Lord :" and the persecutions by St. Paul, previous 
to his conversion, are stated to be directed against 

" ALL THAT CALL ON THE NAME OF CHRIST," (Acts 

ix. 14. 21.) To call upon the name of any one 
signifies, according to the scriptural usage, to invoke 
religiously, to pray to him, and to serve him with 
religious worship. So plain indeed does it appear 
from these and other similar passages, that Christ 
was the object of religious adoration in the first ages 
of Christianity, that the fact can in no other way be 
denied than by denying the correctness of the com- 



chap, vji.] a Proof of his Divinity. 373 

monly received rendering of these places. The 
phrase e*tm*m&*i to nop*, it is alleged, may be 
translated either " to call on the name/' or " to be 
called by the name and accordingly, in the version 
of the Unitarians, 1 Cor. i. 2. is rendered " all that 
are called by the name of Jesus Christ*/' 

This criticism, like the rest of the same school, 
moulders away at the touch of philological exami- 
nation. In the first place, the verb iTr^ocXso^cti, 
followed by an accusative, is never used in a passive 
signification, but always means to call upon, to in- 
voke, or to appeal to. It only occurs in this appli- 
cation, in the following places, Acts ii. 21. vii. 59. 
ix. 14. 21. xxii. 16. xxv. 11, 12. 25. xxvi. 32, 
xxviii. 19. Rom. x. 12, 13, 14. 1 Cor. i. 2. 2 
Cor. i. 23. 2 Tim. ii. 22. 1 Pet. i. 17. Though 
some of these cannot be taken into consideration, as 
being passages in dispute, yet others clearly establish 
the active signification of IniycxKio^on with an accu- 
sative. As, for instance, " they stoned Stephen 
calling upon, iTnxoiXovfMwov, and saying, Lord Jesus," 
(Acts vii. 59.) which cannot possibly be rendered 
passively. So Acts ii. 21. " It shall come to pass, 
that whosoever shall call upon the name of the 

* The Editors of this Version are in this, as in many other 
instances, inconsistent with themselves and with acknowledged 
rules of hermeneutic theology. They render E7rjxaAs~<7$a» to 
ovopa, passively, 1 Cor. i. 2. by " taking upon thyself his name," 
Acts xxii. 16. and in the other passages actively. But these 
enlightened expositors seem to claim the privilege of rendering 
any word in any way, as best suits their system. 



374 Divine Worship directed to Christ, [chap, vii. 

Lord shall be saved ;" which would be absurdly 
rendered, " whosoever shall be called by the name 
of the Lord shall be saved." Ananias said to Saul, 
" Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, 
calling on the name of the Lord," (Acts xxii. 16.) 
where ivixaXurdiAtvos, 1 aorist, middle, cannot be tor- 
tured into " being called by the name it evi- 
dently means " calling upon or having called 
upon/' and can mean nothing else*. Rom. x. 12 — 14. 
is an important passage in determining the signifi- 
cation of the phrase under examination ; the expres- 
sions " whosoever shall call upon the name of the 
Lord .shall be saved/' are a quotation from Joel ii. 
32. where the original Hebrew unquestionably 
means calling upon, invoking in religious worship. 
St. Peter says, <k If ye call on the Father," &c. which 
undoubtedly cannot be rendered otherwise. In Acts 
xxv. 11, 12. 25. xxvi. 32. xxviii. 19. 2 Cor. i. 23. 
the word certainly means to appeal to ; and Acts 
ix. 14. 21. 1 Cor. i. 2. 2 Tim. ii. 22. the only re- 
maining texts, are the passages in dispute; but 
since the verb is to be taken actively in every 
other place where it occurs followed by an accusa- 
tive, it will scarcely admit of doubt that in these 
passages it ought to be understood in the same way; 
and consequently, that 1 Cor. i, 2. is correctly ren- 
dered in the standard version, " all that call upon 
the name of Jesus Christ;" which establishes the 



* Griesbach omits rov Kv^Cov and inserts uvtov, viz. " calling 
upon his name," i. ei the name of God, mentioned v. 14. 



chap, vii.] a Proof of his Divinity. 375 

religious invocation of our Lord by the early Chris- 
tian converts, and the sanction of it by an inspired 
Apostle. , 

Secondly, This phrase in the Septuagint is always 
active, denoting to invoke, to call upon in worship: 
in proof of which it will be sufficient to refer to 
some of the texts where it occurs ; viz. Gen. iv. 26. 
xii. 8. xiii. 4. xxi. 33. xxvi. 25. xxxiii. 20. 1 Sam. 
xii. 17, 18. 2 Sam. xxii. 4. 7. 1 Chron. iv. 10. xvi. 8. 
Ps. Ixxix. 6. xcix. 6. cxvi. 4. Isa. Ixiv. 7. Ixv. L 
Jer. x. 25. Lam. iii. 55. Zech. xiii. 9. &c. Who- 
ever will be at the pains to peruse these passages in 
the Septuagint, must be convinced that i7nK<z?u7<r$ai 
to ovopoi, in that version, means actively calling 
upon ; from which it is fair to infer that it bears no 
other signification in the New Testament. And 
Dr. Whitby on 1 Cor. i. 2. observes, " when the 

phrase is Thy name is called upon us, or we are 
" called by thy name ; it is rendered thus, to ouopoi 
" <rov hnH&Xirkt W if**?, Deut. xxviii. 10. 1 Kings 
" vii. 42. 2 Chron. vii. 14. Isa. iv. 1. Ixiii. 19. Jer. 
" xiv. 9. xv. 16. Dan. ix. 18, 19. Amos ix. 12." 
The like distinction is observed by the writers of 
the New Testament, who use the phrases to ovopa. 
imyJxXriToii or iniKMSh ln\ for to he called by the 
name of another, (Acts xv. 17. James ii. 7.); and 
we cannot suppose that, if they had intended to 
express this meaning in Acts ix. 14. 21. 1 Cor. i. 2. 
they would have employed the phrase lanjcaAfio-Sai 
to ovofAOiy a phrase, in its grammatical construction, 
conveying an active signification. 



376 Divine Worship directed to Christ, [chap, vn* 

Thirdly, In some of the foregoing texts, the 
phrase cannot mean to be called by the name of 
Christ, for the disciples were first called Christians 
at Antioch, in the year 43 *. But before this, we 
find Stephen " calling upon, and saying, Lord 
Jesus/' &c. (Acts vii. 59.) and Ananias bidding St. 
Paul to wash away his sins, " calling upon the name 
of the Lord," (Acts xxii. 16.) Before his conver- 
sion, a. d. 35. this Apostle is described as having a 
commission " to bind all that called upon the name 
of the Lord," (Acts ix. 14. 21 .) It is, therefore, per- 
fectly evident that the phrase cannot have a passive 
signification in these instances, and consequently not 
in the other places where it occurs. 

Fourthly, The expression tmKxXu^ai to wopa. is 
used by the LXX. for a Hebrew phrase, which 
denotes the praying to, or worshipping the supreme 
God, and must therefore have been intended by 
these translators to convey the same meaning f. 

* Acts xi. 26. The Bible chronology places this event in 
A. D. 43. and it is supported by Dr. Hales, New Analysis, 
yol. ii. p 1201. See Pearson, Annates Paulini, p. 4. In Dr. 
Wells's Geography, vol. ii. p. 247. Oxford ed. 1809, the date of 
this occurrence is stated to be 39, which is an error, either of 
the writer or the printer, as the true date, A. d. 43. is given in 
the Chronological Table, p. 320 of that valuable work. Some 
writers suppose that the word ^parija;, used by the sacred 
historian imports that the name of Christians was given to 
believers by divine appointment. See Doddridge, Family 
Expositor in loc . ; but this is very doubtful; see Parkhurst, 
(ifeeh Lexicon in voc. 

t nin> E3&a sop, see Gussetii Comm. Ling. fieb. and Park- 



chap, vii.] a Proof of his Diviyiily. 377 

Hence, we have proof, little short of demonstration, 
in confirmation of the active rendering of the phrase, 
to call upon, to invoke ; which, when Jesus Christ 
is the person addressed, must denote religious invo- 
cation. — Upon the whole, then, we have the most 
complete evidence from Scripture that our Lord was 
the object of divine worship by the primitive Chris- 
tians ; and, of course, religious address ought to be 
directed to him by his pious followers in every suc- 
ceeding age. 

XXVII. Several passages in the Old Testa- 
ment have been supposed to intimate that divine 
worship was due to the Son of God. 1 shall only 
mention two, Ps. ii. 12. and Ps. Ixxii. 15. ; the first 
is, " Kiss the Son, lest he be angry/' &c. which has 
been thought to express religious reverence * ; and 
the second is, " He shall live, and to him shall be 
given of the gold of Sheba ; prayer also shall be 
made for him continually, and daily shall he be 
praised." These, it is obvious to remark, are very 
doubtful attestations to the truth supported in this 
chapter. 

XXVIII. It has been objected that our Saviour 
forbad prayers to him after his resurrection and 
exaltation, when he said, " in that day ye shall ask 

hurst in «np ; the same author's Gr. Lex. in eTrxa?^, deserves 
to be consulted. 

* See Selden, de IMis Syris, Proleg. cap. iii. D. J. H, 
Michaelis, Notce Uberiorcs in loc. et Ps. Ixxii. 15. 



3? 8 Divine Worship directed, #c. [chap. vif. 

me nothing," John xvi. 23. The context, however, 
shews that the discourse is not upon prayer to Christ, 
but the teaching of the Holy Spirit, v. 7. et seq. 
who would guide them into all truth, v. 13. for which 
reason, they would not find it necessary, after the 
Spirit of truth was come, to question him as they 
then did. Whitby well explains it, " When I have 
" sent the Holy Spirit ' to lead you into all truth/ 
" you shall have no need to inquire after satisfac- 
" tion in any thing, as now you do, or to ask the 
" sense of any thing suggested to you by the 
" Spirit, as you sometimes ask the meaning of my 
" words*." 

XXIX. These testimonies evince, beyond all 
reasonable doubt, that the divine worship of our 
Saviour is both expressly enjoined in holy Scrip- 
ture, and is sanctioned by the example of the Apos- 
tles and early converts to Christianity. As no being 
however, can be a fit object for religious address 
but the Deity, the necessary inference is, that our 
Lord Jesus Christ is strictly and truly God. 

* The meaning is more apparent in Dr. Campbell's version,, 
i. e. " On that day ye will put no questions to me." " Sensus 
est; ubi vos revidero, ad vos rediero,, vos eo perducemini, u| 
non amplius opus habeatis, me interrogare de religioais meaa 
capitibus, effatis vobis adhuc obscuris, ejusmodi quaestiones 
proponere, qualem niodo proponere volebatis, v. 17. 19. con- 
tinget vobis plenior et accuratior cognitio v. 12. seq." Kuinoel 3 
Comm. in loc. so Rosenmuller, Scholia in loc. 



CHAPTER VIII. 



THE SONSHIP OF CHRIST, A PROOF OF HIS DIVINITY. 



I. In this chapter an attempt will be made to 
evince the deity of Christ from his filiation. The 
subject, indeed, is not without its difficulties ; and 
there is scarcely any upon which various writers 
have hazarded more rash and unauthorized opinions. 
To examine or refute them, forms no part of my 
design, which is to inquire into the evidence for the 
proper Sonship of Christ ; since, if this can be 
established, he must be divine and uncreated, and 
consequently essentially God. Some sincere be- 
lievers in the deity of Jesus, doubt the legitimacy 
of this conclusion, on the ground that he is called 
the Son of God solely on account of his miraculous 
conception and birth. Others suppose that he is so 
called by reason of his resurrection, when he was 
raised from the womb of the earth, and, as it were, 
born to a new and immortal life. Others, again, 
maintain that the title " Son of God," denotes an 
office, and is equivalent to that of Messiah, imply- 



3S0 The Sonship of Christ, [chap. vih. 

ing only that he was the prophet who should come 
into the world ; while not a few are inclined to 
consider the Sonship of Christ as uncertain evidence 
of his divinity, because the phrase " Son of God" 
is metaphorically applied in Scripture to angels and 
to men*. 

Without entering into a professed refutation, 
these objections, it will be granted, must fall to the 
ground, provided it can be proved that Jesus Christ 
is not denominated the Son of God, in the same 
way as Christians are styled the sons of God by 
virtue of their adoption, and of the high preroga- 
tives they enjoy ; but that the appellation belongs 
to him in a much higher and more exalted sense ; a 
sense applicable only to the divine nature, and 
therefore implying his divinity. The main object 
to be kept in view is, to shew that Jesus Christ is a 

* These objections are triumphantly confuted by the incom- 
parable Bishop Bull, Judicium Eccles. CathoL cap. v. The 
doctrine of our Lord's eternal filiation has been more recently 
opposed by Mr, Hawtrey, in his ©sa»$p«wo?, and Sequel to the 
same ; but he has received able answers from Mr. Bryant, 
Sentiments of Philo Judceus, P. III. and Dr. Hodson, Eternal 
Filiation of the Son of God asserted. Without professedly 
combating his objections, I have had an eye to them, and have 
endeavoured to establish this doctrine by unexceptionable 
testimonies of Scripture. If I have succeeded in my design, 
the objections of Mr. Hawtrey and others must be groundless. 
— I regret my inability to procure a Sermon by the Bishop of 
Chester on the Eternal Generation, as, from the extracts hi 
Hawtre\'s Sequel, it appears to be a valuable production, 



chap, viii.] a Proof of his Divinity. 381 

Son in his super-human nature ; for the proof of 
this position will be a sufficient refutation of all the 
objections which have been advanced against it. 
Now that he is properly and peculiarly the Son of 
God will be admitted, if it can be proved that he 
was a Son before his appearance in the flesh, that 
he is styled the Son of God in so emphatic a manner 
as to distinguish him from all others to whom this 
appellation may be given, and that this title is occa- 
sionally applied to him under circumstances where 
it must have been designed to convey the idea of 
divinity. The truth of this is confirmed by the 
most ample and convincing testimony, which I shall 
state, for the sake of perspicuity, under separate 
heads. 

Christ was a Son before his Conception, 

II. If Jesus Christ was a Son before his con- 
ception in the womb of the Virgin, it will scarcely 
be denied that this Sonship must have been in his 
divine nature : and that he was a Son before he was 
conceived of the Holy Ghost is a fact completely 
established by the following testimonies. 

John iii. 16. " God so loved the world, that he 
gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever be- 
lieveth in him should not perish, but have everlast- 
ing life." The term " only-begotten" clearly refers 
to the Son previous to his appearance in the flesh. 
He cannot derive this designation from any thing 
posterior to this gift. It was the only-begotten Son 



382 The Sonship of Christ, [chap. vm. 

whom the Father gave, and therefore he was the 
only-begotten Son before this gift, that is, before 
his incarnation ; hence it must denote an eternal 
and incomprehensible generation in the divine Es- 
sence. 

John iii. 17. " God sent not his Son into the 
world to condemn the world." Jesus was, there- 
fore, a Son before his mission, which could only be 
by an antecedent filiation. By the same mode of 
reasoning it is alleged, it ma}^ be proved that the 
Apostles pre-existed, since Christ says, " As thou 
hast sent me into the world, even so have I also 
sent them into the world," (John xvii. 18.) But the 
fallacy of this lies in taking these expressions to 
imply the same kind of pre-existence. When our 
Lord says, " I have sent them into the world," it 
certainly implies their pre-existence, but only a pre- 
existence in a different state, in a private station, 
and not in the character of Apostles of Christ ; but 
when he says, " as thou hast sent me into the 
world," it implies his pre-existence before his being 
sent into the world, which could only be in his 
divine nature. Hence, the objection does not apply 
to the passage under consideration ; for it was his 
Son whom God sent into the world, which implies 
that he pre-existed in the relation of a Son before 
his coming into the world. 

John xvii. 24. u Father — thou lovest me be- 
fore the foundation of the world — " a decla- 
ration this of paternal affection on the one part, 



! 



chap, vin.] a Proof of his Divinity. 383 

which seems to imply on the other, the existence of 
a Son as the object of it*." 

Mark xii. 6. " Having yet one Son, his well- 
beloved, HE SENT HIM ALSO LAST UNTO THEM." The 
Person thus sent was, before his mission, " the 
well-beloved Son of God." In parabolical history, 
all the circumstances will seldom admit of a strict 
interpretation ; but the general outline must accord 
with the truth and reality of things, or it would 
afford no instruction. The parable of the vineyard, 
from which the text is taken, represents the infinite 
love of God towards his chosen people, in sending- 
to them various messengers, and when, notwith- 
standing they continued stubborn and rebellious, in 
last of all sending them his Son : but unless God 
had an only and well-beloved Son, before he was 
sent, there is neither truth nor propriety in the 
parable. 

Col. i. 15. " The Son — who is the first-born of 
every creature f." The chief difficulty lies in as- 
certaining the meaning of w^Toro^og, which has 
been variously explained, as may be seen in the 
Synopsis of Pool, or the Cures of Wolfius. One 

* Dr. Hodson, The Eternal Filiation of the Son of God 
asserted, p. 28. Oxon. 1796. See also Bryant, Philo Judteus, 
p. 231. 

f " The absence of the article," says Bishop Middle ton, 
" shews that aria-is is here used for an individual, as in our 
" version, and not of the creation inclusively, which would 
" have required 9raa-/j? t>j? kt^wj-: so Mark xvi. 15. and Rom. 
" viii. 22." Doct. of Greek Art. p. 542. 



384 The Sons/lip of Christ, [chap, viii, 

thing is certain, that it cannot mean, according to 
the Arians, " the first made creature;" as " by him 
were all things created," (v. 16.) and the Creator of 
all things cannot be a creature. My opinion coin- 
cides with that of those commentators who under- 
stand the words as meaning " begotten before every 
creature/' that is, before any created being had ex- 
istence. For, in the first place, this interpretation 
suits the context better than any other. In illus- 
tration of the truth that Christ is " the first-born of 
every creature," the Apostle adds, that " by him 
were all things created,'' which evidently implies 
that Christ was begotten before the existence of any 
creature. Secondly, wpwroTokos literally signifies 
first-born or first-begotten; and understanding Trpo, 
which is included in it, to govern the genitive mUzus, 
the whole phrase is most naturally explained, " being 
begotten before every creature Thirdly, this 
term occurs in eight other places of the New Tes- 
tament, and always conveying the notion of first- 
born, with perhaps one exception, Heb. xii. 23. 
Fourthly, all the ancient versions take it in the 
sense of first-born ; and so it was explained by most 
of the ancient Fathers f. This interpretation, so 
strongly supported, may be regarded as undoubtedly 

* " To wpo, quod continetur in wpwToroxoj, regit genitivum, 
xTicr£&jf. Teinpus est accidens crtaturce: ergo ortus Filii Dei 
praecedit omne tempus." Bengelii Gnomon in loc. 

f Suicer, Thesaur. torn. ii. p. 879. The interpretation here 
adopted irs ably defended by Dr. Hod son, Eternal Filiation, 
fyc, p. 6. et seq. See also Bryant, Philo Judceus, p. 234. 



chap, viii.] a Proof of his Divinity. 385 

the true one, and it supplies a striking testimony to 
the eternal filiation of our Lord. 

Heb. i. 6. " And again, when he bringeth in 

THE FIRST-BEGOTTEN INTO THE WORLD." The Son 

was, therefore, begotten before he was brought into 
the world. 

1 John iv. 9. " In this was manifested the love 
of God towards us, because that God sent his 

ONLY-BEGOTTEN SON INTO THE WORLD, that We might 

live through him." He was, therefore, the only- 
begotten Son of God before he was sent into the 
world. 

St. John says, " all things were made by the 
Word," (ch. i. 3.) St. Paul likewise affirms that 
all things were made by the Son, Col. i. 13 — 17. 
Heb. i. 2. 10. " Either then," as Dr. Hodson ob- 
serves, " one of them is wrong, a supposition not 
" compatible with the plenary inspiration attributed 
" to the sacred Writers ; or, if they are both right, 
" the Word and the Son mean one and the same 
" pre-existing power # ." It is objected to this argu- 
ment, that when a person performs an action, and 
we distinguish him by some particular title or cha- 
racter, it is no proof that he had that title or charac- 
ter when he performed the action. He is designated 
by the title and character which he actually possesses, 
though he performed the action when he bad neither 
the one nor the other. As, for example, we say 

* Eternal Filiation, fyc* p. 15. See Dr. Jortin, Remarks on 
Eccl. Hist. vol. ii. p. 210. Lond. 1767. 

Cc 



386 



The Sonship of Christ, [chap, viii, 



Bishop Lowth wrote the Poetical Preelections, 
though he was not a Bishop when he published that 
immortal work. Creation, then, may be indifferently 
ascribed to the Word, or to the Son of God, though 
he had not the latter character till afterwarejs, when 
he condescended to be born of a virgin # . But to 
this objection it may be answered, that it amounts 
to no more than a bare possibility ; that it attributes 
a loose and vague phraseology to the sacred Penmen, 
wholly incredible on so important a subject ; that it 
supposes the Apostles to use a language extremely 
liable to create serious mistakes, which is hardly 
reconcileable with their inspiration ; and that it is 
contrary to the plain and natural meaning of the 
expressions. When it is said that all things were 
made by the Son, what can we infer, but that the 
efficient Creator was, at the time of action, really 
subsisting in the character of a Son ? After all, 
the objection is, perhaps, a mere petitio principii, 
grounded upon the previous supposition that our 
Lord's filiation commenced at his nativity at Beth- 
lehem : but if other scriptures prove it to be divine 
and eternal, it is clear that his title of Son is not 
derived from any character assumed in time. 

2 Sam. vii. 14. " I will be his Father, and he 
shall be my Son." (Comp. 1 Chron. xvii. 13.) That 
this is a prophecy of Christ, either in a primary or 
secondary sense, is evident from its being referred 
to him by the inspired author of the Epistle to the 

* Hawtrey's Sequel to ©fai&gAw?, p. 94. et seq. 



M 



chap, viii.] a Proof of his Divinity. 387 

Hebrews, who introduces it in proof of Christ's su- 
periority over the angels * But if this Sonship 
refers not to his divine nature, it would be no 
ground of Christ's superiority to the angels ; the 
Apostle's argument, therefore, requires it to be un- 
derstood of an ante-mundane Sonship. 

Ps. ii. 7. " The Lord hath said unto me, Thou 
art my Son ; this day have I begotten thee." This 
Psalm, which is undoubtedly prophetical of the 
Messiah represents him in the character of a Son 
begotten of the Father ; and the seventh verse is 
cited by the Apostle to prove Christ's superiority 
over the angels : " For unto which of the angels 
said he at any time, Thou art my Son ; this day 
have I begotten thee ?" Heb. i. 5. The force of 
the argument lies in the expression " begotten," 
importing that the person addressed is the Son of 
God, not by creation, but by generation. Christ's 
pre-eminence over the angels is here stated to con- 
sist in this, that, whereas they are created, he is 
begotten ; and the Apostle's reasoning is fallacious, 
unless this expression intimates a proper and pecu- 
liar filiation J. — Some, I am aware, interpret Psal. 

* Heb. i. 5. See Peirce in loc. and Hales's Diss. IV. and 
New Analysis, vol. ii. p. 367. 

+ This appears from Acts iv. 25. Heb. i. 5. v. 5. and from 
verses 8 and 12 being applicable to no other than the Messiah. 

I " Non dicit Deus adoptavi, sed generavi te: quod com- 
municationem ejusdem essentiae et naturae divinae significat, 
modo tamen prorsus ineffabili." Michaelis, Nota Uberiores 
in Ps. ii, 7. 

cc2 



388 The Sonship of Christ, [chap. viii. 

ii. 7. not of a proper generation, but as a prophecy 
of the Messiah's resurrection, because it seems to be 
applied to that event, Acts xiii. 33. This, how- 
ever, does not import, that by raising Jesus from 
the dead, God begat him into the relation of a Son; 
for, by the same reason, every person raised from 
the dead, might be called the begotten Son of God : 
besides, Christ was the Son of God before his re- 
surrection, as was declared by the voice from heaven 
at his baptism : but it means that by raising him, 
God declared the Messiah to be his Son. Though 
Jesus had been put to death as a blasphemer, God 
by raising him from the grave, confirmed, in a 
signal manner, the truth that Jesus was his Son, 
who took our flesh upon him, and suffered upon 
the cross, to expiate the sins of the whole world. 
The text in question, then, is applied by the Apostle 
to the resurrection of Christ, because that event was 
a full confirmation of our Lord's proper Sonship * 

* This interpretation is supported by the high authority of 
Bishop Bull, Judicium Eccles. Cathol. cap. v. § 7. and of Arch- 
bishop Tillotson, Sermon LXVI. vol. ii. p. 423. Professor 
Doederlein translates the phrase in Ps. ii. 7. " jam te genitum 
a me demonstro," but as appears to me erroneously. Scholia 
in Ps. ii. 7. "pmf?* ovn is literally, " this day have I begotten 
thee ;" and ovn, 1 think, means hodie ceternitatis, as with God 
the past and the future are as it were present; or it may mean 
the day when " the decree" was declared ; " ovn ad illud 
tempus est referendum, quo oraculum hoc editum erat." Ro- 
senmiiller, Scholia in loc. properly signifies to beget, and 
if the Apostle has not misinterpreted it in Heb. i. 5. it must 
in this passage of the Psalms denote a proper generation. 



chap, viii.] a Proof of his Divinity. 389 

Psalms lxxx. 15. and lxxxix. 26, 27. have been 
thought to attest the filiation of our Lord : as is 
shewn by Allix, Judgment of the Jewish Church, 
p. 270. Bishop Chandler,, Defence, cap. iii. § 3. 
Hales, Dissertations, p. 93. 107. Miehaelis, JVbtce 
Uberiores, and Poli Synopsis in loc. Though they 
are probably correctly referred to Christ, yet this is 
not sufficiently clear to permit an appeal to them on 
the present question. Neither can we, with critical 
propriety, refer to Ps. ex. 3. rendered by the LXX. 
and Vulgate, " Before the morning star I begat 
thee/' and supported by the Syriac ; for the present 
Hebrew text is very different, and on the supposition 
of some corruption, it would not, in that case, be 
entitled to a voice. Many of the ancient Fathers, 
however, quote it according to the Septuagint ver- 
sion ; and Dr. Kennicott translates it ; " With thee 
shall be royalty in the day of thy power ; in ma- 
jesty and holiness from the womb; before the 
morning star, I have begotten thee*." In this 
view it is decisive of the ante-mundane filiation of 
Christ, since the Psalm is undoubtedly prophetical 
of him, as appears from the frequent citation of it 
by the Apostles; but this sense cannot be extracted 
from the present text. 

* Remarks on select Passages in the O. T. p. 214. See 
Durell, Dimock, and Houbigant, in loc. Capellus, Critica 
Sacra, p. 507. et al. ed. Vogel. and the learned Dissertation in 
the Appendix to Merrick's Annotations. Also Bishop Lowth, 
De Sac. Poes. Heb. p. 118. Oxon. 1810. 



390 The Sonship of Christ, [chap. viii. 

Proverbs viii. 24, 25. 

" When there were no depths I was born; 
When there were no fountains abounding with 
water. 

Before the mountains were settled, 
Before the hills were, I was born." 
Proverbs xxx. 4. 

" Who hath established all the ends of the earth? 
What is his name, and what is his son's name? 
Declare, if thou canst tell." 
These decisive testimonies to the eternal generation 
of the Son of God, I have quoted according to the 
New Attempt towards an improved Translation of 
the Proverbs, in the notes to which, I have fully 
stated the reasons which warrant the application of 
these passages to our blessed Lord. 

Dan. iii. 25. " Lo, I see four men loose, walking 
in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; 

and THE FORM OF THE FOURTH IS LIKE THE SON OF 

God." This, it must be acknowledged, may only 
denote some angelic appearance, particularly as the 
speaker was a heathen *. The Son of God, how- 
ever, appeared to Saul when he was persecuting his 
disciples, and why might he not appear to Nebu- 
chadnezzar, who was committing to the flames the 
pious worshippers of the Son, the Jehovah of the 
Hebrew church ? 

* Wintle and C. B. Michaelis, Notes Uheriores in loc. Dathe 
renders it, " similis est filii Deorurn." 



chap, viii.] a Proof of his Divinity. 391 

Micah v. 2. " Thou Beth-Iehem Ephratah—out 
of thee shall he come forth unto me that shall be 
Ruler in Israel : whose goings forth have been 
from of old,, from everlasting." A signal pro- 
phecy of the Messiah, whose divine and eternal 
generation is here emphatically described. This 
prophecy is illustrated, and its application to our 
Lord vindicated, chap. v. sect. xvi. 

The mystery of our Saviour's filiation is probably 
represented by some of those metaphorical expres- 
sions by which he is designated in the sacred Writ- 
ings. As, for example, he is denominated the Branch 
of Jehovah, Isa. iv. 2. ; Zech. iii. 8. vi. 12. the 
Image of God ; 2 Cor. iv. 4. Col. i. 15. the Bright- 
ness of the Father's glory, and the Express Image 
of his person, Heb. i. 3. These, and other expres- 
sions of a similar kind, seem to import a proper 
generation, and a co-equality of essence. The Son 
is a Branch originating from the paternal Root, an 
eternal Effulgence issuing from the eternal Fountain 
of Glory, the Express Image deradiating from the 
everlasting Centre of Deity ; and yet is as essen- 
tially of the same nature with the Father by w r hom 
he was begotten, as the branch is with the root, or 
the ray of light with the pure ethereal source from 
whence it emanates *. 

* Vitringa, de Generatione Filii, p. 19. Francq. 1689. It is 
observable, that the generation of the Son is expressed by a 
great variety of phrases, as if designedly to point out a real, 
not a figurative filiation ; as, for instance, by ib> 9 to beget, 
Ps. ii. 7. ; H3p, to acquire by generation, Prov. viii. 22. ; hbttip 



392 The Sonship of Christ, [chap. vih„ 

These testimonies fully establish the position, that 
our Lord was the Son of God before he was con- 
ceived in the womb of the Virgin. They also serve 
to remove an objection which is sometimes made, 
that the divine Logos is called Son, particularly by 
the ancient Prophets, because he was afterwards to 
appear in that character. Whereas in many of the 
texts examined above, he is expressly described as a 
Son previous to his incarnation, and therefore he 
cannot be so called from any character which he was 
afterwards to assume. It may be remarked that 
upon the testimonies produced from the Old Testa- 
ment, the ancient Jews grounded the opinion which 
undoubtedly prevailed among them, though perhaps 
only partially, that the Messiah should be the Son 
of God*. 

The miraculous Conception of Christ. 

III. The miraculous conception supplies a pow- 
erful evidence to the divinity of our Saviour. Had 
Jesus been a mere man, no reason can be assigned 
why his birth should not have been after the ordi- 
nary course of nature. A prophet and moral 
teacher, according to our notions of propriety, 
might have descended from human parents alone. 
But in this instance every thing is extraordinary and 
superhuman ; so that whether we consider the asto- 

to bring forth, Prov. viii. 24. ; «y», to go forth, Micah v. 2. 
Vitringa, ibid. p. 16. 

* Allix, Judgment of the Ancient Jewish Church, cap. xvii. 
Jamieson; Vindication, lib. i. cap. 7. 



chap, viii.] a Proof of his Divinity. 393 

nishing fact of a virgin's being with child, the 
ineffable operation of the Holy Spirit, and the pro- 
phetical intimations of this event, we are irresistibly 
led to surmise that he was more than man whose 
birth was so extraordinary and miraculous. 

This surmise is confirmed beyond all reasonable 
doubt when we find it recorded, that, in consequence 
of his miraculous conception, Jesus should be called 
Immanuel, the meaning of which is, God with us, 
Matt. i. 23. and that he should be denominated the 
Son of God. The angel addressed Mary and said, 
" The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the 
power of the Highest shall overshadow thee : there- 
fore also that holy thing, which shall be born of 
thee, shall be called the Son of God," i. e. shall 
really be the Son of God. " And the reason is 
" clear/ ' as Bishop Pearson remarks, " because 
" that the Holy Ghost is God. For were he any 
" creature, and not God himself, by whom our 
" Saviour was thus born of the Virgin, he must 
" have been the Son of a creature, not of God*." 
It is worthy of observation, that our Lord, in this 
passage of St. Luke's Gospel, is not called the only 
Son, the only-begotten, or first-begotten Son, but 
simply the Son of God ; and he is so called, in 
respect to his humanity, because of his conception 
in the womb of the Virgin, by the operation of the 

* On the Creed, p. 172. See Bishop Bull, Judicium Eccles, 
Cathol. cap. v. § 5. Griesbach does not admit ix <rov, of thee, 
into his text of Luke i. 35. and he is clearly right in so doing. 
It makes no difference in the interpretation here proposed. 



394 



The Sonship of Christ, [chap. viii. 



Holy Ghost. But this does not constitute the only 
pre-eminence of Christ, designated by the title Son 
of God, for in this respect he is not much superior 
to Adam, who was the immediate work of God, as 
Christ's human nature was the immediate work of 
the Holy Ghost. And therefore, although he is the 
Son of God, even as man, by reason of his mira- 
culous conception, it by no means excludes a higher 
and antecedent generation. So far from this, that 
it leads us to attribute a prior and divine origin 
to the Person thus mysteriously ushered into the 
world *. 

Unitarians have been so sensible of the incom- 
patibility of the miraculous conception with their 
scheme, that they have anxiously endeavoured to 
rid themselves of the obnoxious passages in which 
it is related. For this reason, in what they call an 
Improved Version, they have printed in italics those 
parts of Matthew and Luke, containing the account, 
to shew that they are of doubtful authority. One 
might have supposed that at least some plausible 
reasons would be adduced for throwing suspicion 
upon any part of Holy Writ : but so far is this 
from being the case, that the authorities cited 

* This I take to be the true explanation of Luke i. 35. but 
some expound the last clause, by " he shall be declared or 
manifested to be the Son of God by his birth of a virgin/' — 
" vocabitur Filius Dei, i. e. manifestabitur, jam antea verus 
existens Deus ab aeterno : esse agnoscetur Filius unigenitus, 
Joh. i. 18. et ex Dei substantia genitus." Poli Synop. in loc. 
So Bisterfeld, De Uno Deo, p. 303. 



chap, viii.] a Proof of his Divinity. 395 

are glaringly insufficient. The narratives, as the 
Editors acknowledge, are found in all the Manu- 
scripts and Versions extant. It is, therefore, impos- 
sible, with any degree of consistency, to dispute the 
authenticity of passages supported by such a vast 
preponderating evidence of manuscripts, versions, 
and quotations * 

Nor should the circumstance be overlooked, that 
the authenticity of the narratives in the beginning 
of Matthew's and Luke's Gospels is confirmed by 
many allusions to the miraculous conception in other 
passages of Scripture. " To an Unitarian, such ex- 
" pressions as ' God sent his own Son in the likeness 
" of sinful flesh ;' * the Word was made flesh, and 
" dwelt among us ;■' ' God sent forth his Son, made 
" of a woman, made under the law may seem to 
" carry in them no allusion to any thing out of the 
" common course of things ; but to those who be- 
" lieve the accounts of the miraculous conception 
" of Jesus, nothing can be more (Erect and con- 
" elusive than such references f." There are also 
several prophetical intimations of this event, de- 

* The authenticity of these passages is defended, with un- 
answerable reasons, by Magee, On Atonement, Append, p. 451. 
et seq. and Post. p. 263. et seq. Laurence, Crit. Reflect, cap. ii. 
and iii, Nares, Remarks, p. 5. et seq. Rennell, Animadversions, 
p. 1. et seq. Hales, Faith in the Trin. Lett. III. Griesbach, 
Comment. Criticus in Textum N, T. Par. II. Jenae. 1811. See 
Huet, Demonst. Evangel. Prop. IX. cap. ix. § 7. Home, 
Introduction to the Study of the Holy Scriptures, vol. ii. 
p. 409. et seq. 

t Nares, Remarks, p. 18. 



396 Tlie Sonship of Christ, [chap, viii. 

scribing it with such minuteness and particularity, 
as cannot but induce an unbiassed understanding to 
infer that the Person, whose miraculous birth was 
thus wonderfully foretold, was more than man, was 
celestial, and really possessed of the divine attri- 
butes. I shall therefore proceed to state and ex- 
amine them. 

Gen. iii. 15. " I will put enmity between thee 
and the woman, and between thy seed and her 
seed : it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise 
his heel." This prophecy taken by itself is obscure ; 
and our first parents, to whom this promise was 
made, after the fatal transgression, could probably 
only collect from it a rational hope of mercy, with- 
out understanding the manner in which it was to 
be displayed. But if it be compared with other 
prophecies, and illustrated by the light diffused upon 
it by the apostolical writings, it becomes evident 
that " the seed of the woman/' denotes the Re- 
deemer, whose birth was to be out of the ordinary 
course of nature ; and accordingly he is the seed 
of the woman in a sense which is true of no other 
person *> 

Isaiah vii, 14. " Behold, a virgin shall con- 

* This prophecy is most ably treated by Dr. Sherlock in his 
third Discourse on Prophecy, It is neatly explained by Faber, 
Horce Mosaicte, vol. ii. p. 330. 2d edit. In Mede's Discourses 
XL, XLI, XLII, are some ingenious observations, but in some 
of them the reader will probably not acquiesce. The same 
may be said of Heidegger, Hist. Patriarch, exercit. iii. § 24. 
ct seq. See also Dr. Hales, Faith in the Trinity, Lett. IV. 



chap, vni.] a Proof of his Divinity. 397 

ceive and bear a son, and shall call his name 
Immanuel." This clear and circumstantial pro- 
phecy is applied by the Evangelist to the concep- 
tion of Christ, Matt. i. 23. As to the objection of 
the Jews, that the Prophet does not speak of a vir- 
gin, an unanswerable refutation may be seen in the 
authors cited chap. iv. sect. ii. p. 172. to which the 
reader is referred. 

Isaiah xlix. L <c Listen, O isles, unto me; and 
hearken, ye people, from far ; The Lord hath 

CALLED ME FROM THE WOMB ; FROM THE BOWELS OF 

my mother hath he made mention of my name/' 
The prophecy, from which this passage is ex- 
tracted, undoubtedly refers to Christ ; for certain 
parts of it are quoted and applied to him and the 
Gospel dispensation, by the sacred Writers of the 
New Testament*. No doubt, therefore, can re- 
main that it contains an allusion to the circum- 
stance, before more fully expressed, of a virgin's 
conceiving and bearing a son. 

Isaiah liii. 8. " He was taken from prison and 
from judgment ; and who shall declare his genera- 
tion ?" This passage of an illustrious prophecy of 
our blessed Redeemer, probably refers to his divine 
and ineffable generation ; yet it is not to be denied, 
that the Hebrew word doro, may be rendered " his 
life," " his manner of life," as in Lowth's version, 

* Verse 6 is cited Acts xiii. 47. Comp. Luke ii, 32. and v, 8. 
in 2 Cor. vi. 2. and v. 10. in Rev. vii. 16, 



398 



The Sonship of Christ, [chap. viii. 



or " the men of his generation/' as Parkhurst and 
others translate it. 

Jeremiah xxxi. 22. " The Lord hath created a 
new thing in the earth, A woman shall compass a 
man or, as it may be rendered, " A woman shall 
compass a male child." The first clause of this 
quotation implies that the thing mentioned in the 
latter was to be new or uncommon, and that it was 
to be the Lord's doing or work ; both of which 
characters are very applicable to our Lord's mira- 
culous conception, and to no other event to which 
the prophecy has been supposed to relate. Nor 
are other reasons wanting in support of this inter- 
pretation, as the reader may find by consulting 
Matthew Pool's Synopsis*. 

* Dr. Blaney's version is, " A woman shall put to the rout 
a strong man," which he defends by the following reasons: 
" The verb 11D signifies to turn about, and consequently in 
" Hiph. or Pih. may signify, to cause to turn about, that is, 
" to repulse, ox put to the rout, an opposing adversary." He 
has, however, produced no example of this ; and I think none 
can be produced ; its meaning, though it often occurs in Pih. 
and Hiph. never is to defeat, to put to the rout, but to turn, go, 
or compass about. s< Again," says he, " there is a manifest 
" opposition between nipJ, a woman, one of the feebler sex, 
" and nu, which signifies not simply a man, but a mighty man, 
" a hero, a warrior. And therefore, A woman shall put to the 
" rout, or repulse a strong man, may be a proverbial form of 
" speech to denote, The weaker shall prevail over the stronger." 
Granting the opposition here mentioned, his conclusion by no 
means follows. But the opposition is not proved to exist; 
on the contrary, aaa is a term given to a new-born babe, 



chap, viii.] a Proof of his Divinity, 399 

Micah v. iii. ({ Therefore will he give them up, 
until the time that she which travaileth hath 
brought forth ;" or, as Archbishop Newcome 
better renders it, (C until the time when she that 
bringeth forth hath brought forth." Grotius, Dathe, 
and others are of opinion, that, as the Prophet 
compares the troubles of the Israelites on account 
of their captivity to a woman in travail, ch. iv. 9, 10. 
he here assimilates the pleasures of their liberation 
to a woman who " hath brought forth." But as 
the preceding verse certainly relates to the ante- 
cedent generation of Christ, (chap. v. sect, xvi.) it 
is most reasonable to understand this of our Lord's 
conception and birth of a Virgin. As Micah was 
cotemporary with Isaiah, and acquainted with his 
writings, (comp. Mic. iv. 1 — 4. with Isa. ii. 2 — 5.) 
it is most likely he had in his eye the signal predic- 
tion of Isaiah, that a virgin should conceive and 
bear a son, ch; vii. 14 * 

Job iii. 3. and the same root, under the form mnj, is applied 
to Christ, Isa. ix. 5. Ps. xlv. 4. Heb. The Doctor's last rea- 
son is, that his version suits the context, But the context 
seems to relate to the benefits obtained through Christ, and 
therefore rather favours the opinion of those who refer this text 
to the miraculous conception. Hence Dr. Blaney's translation 
of the passage is indefensible. See Pearson, On the Creed, 
vol. i. p. 270. and the note, vol. ii. p. 201. Hales, Dissertations, 
p. 356. Parkhurst and Gussetii Lex. niD. N. 

* " Usque ad tempus pariturae, seu quo qua paritura est 
Bethlehemae pepererit divinum ilium heroem (v. 1.), qui popu- 
lum ab hostibus liberabit. Virginem innuit, e qua modo pro- 



400 The Sonship of Christ, [chap. viii. 

Since it is plain that the birth of Jesus Christ of 
a Virgin was foretold in the Old Testament, and is 
alluded to in the New ; since it is in itself so asto- 
nishing, and so contrary to what we should natu- 
rally expect in the birth of a merely human pro- 
phet, we must surely infer that so extraordinary a 
circumstance was designed to intimate his pre- 
eminent dignity and celestial nature. 

Christ is called emphatically a Son, and the Son 
of God. 

IV. Our Saviour is called the Son, or the Son 
of God in so emphatic and particular a manner, as 
to be alone applicable to his divine nature. Of the 
numerous texts confirming this observation, I shall 
cite some of the principal * 

Matt. iii. 16, 17. " Jesus, when he was baptized, 

digioso Messiam nasciturum sperabant istius aetatis homines." 
Rosenmiiller, Scholia in loc. See also Pococke in loc. 

It has been supposed that our Saviour's birth of a Virgin is 
intimated Ps. lxxxvi. 16. cxvi. 16. Prov. xxx. 19. Eccles. xi. 5. 
and I am far from asserting that -there is no ground for this 
opinion : at the same time, I confess it does not appear to be 
established by sufficient reasons, to allow an appeal to them 
in reference to the present subject. 

* It may be supposed that the Greek article would have 
much influence upon this question; but Bishop Middleton has 
convinced me that the sacred Writers use h vlos rov ©eoD and 
vloq Gbov indifferently, and that " the presence or the absence 
of the article does not determine the phrase to be used in a 
higher or lower sense." Doct. of Gr. Art. p. 181. 



chap. viii.J a Proof of his Divinity. 401 

went up straightway out of the water : and Jo, the 
heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the 
Spirit of God descending 1 like a dove, and lighting 
upon him : and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, 
This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well 
pleased. " Let the question be put, How Jesus, 
at the time of his baptism, was God's beloved Son, 
in whom he was well pleased ? It could not be 
solely on account of his miraculous conception, and 
his official character as the Messiah, for he was only 
entering upon that office, and it was not yet known 
whether he would fulfil its arduous duties in a man- 
ner pleasing to the Father. Neither could it be on 
account of the virtues exhibited in his life, inasmuch 
as he had only commenced his career, and it had not 
yet appeared how he would conduct himself in the 
temptations and difficulties to which his ministry 
exposed him. This love of the Father's being prior 
to any thing that Jesus had done to merit it, infers 
a higher and antecedent Sonship. This is greatly 
strengthened by taking into consideration the force 
of the aorist, riioxia-K ; which, in its most common 
acceptation of past time, will signify, " in whom I 
have been well pleased," that is, from all eternity. 
The aorist, indeed, is said to be sometimes put for 
the present, and I acknowledge it may be so ren- 
dered in English with sufficient correctness; but in 
these cases, the aorist does not seem to stand merely 
for the present, but to denote continuity of action; 
it does so at least in very many instances. The 
phrase, then, h w fJJox>i<ra, means in whom I always 

Dd 



403 The Sonship of Christ, [chap. viii. 

have been well pleased, am at present well pleased, 
and will continue to be well pleased *, which im- 
plies his antecedent existence as a Son. 

Matt. xi. 27. " No man knoweth the Son but 
the Father ; neither knoweth any man the Father 
save the Son." This implies that the knowledge of 
the Father and the Son is reciprocal ; and as the 
Father's is infinite in degree, so likewise must be 
the Son's, which is impossible, unless the relation- 
ship of Father and Son had existed from all eter- 
nity. (Compare chap. v. sect, xx.) 

Matt. xvii. 5. " Behold, a voice out of the cloudy 
which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I 
am well pleased ; hear ye him." The observa- 

* In the note to the Oxford edition of Vigerus, De Idiotismis, 
p. 164. the writer observes the aorist is only used for the pre- 
sent " ubi indefinita plane temporis est significatio, et prae- 
sertim generalitur loquimur de persona vel re, quae ita agere 
vel agi solet ;" and he instances Matt. iii. 17. observing, " Pe- 
rinde est acsi dixisset Deus : in quo ab csternitate usque ac- 
quiesces soleo, acquiesco, et in cat emit at em acquiescam." See 
Macknight, Prel. Ess, IV. § 11. Hermannus, ad Viger. p. 592. 
ed. Oxon. says, " Aoristorum, quae pro praesente adhiberi 
dicuntur, duplex ratio est, prior, qua fieri aliquid solere indi- 
catur ; altera, qua pr&teritum vere indicatur." Matthiae in- 
stances these two cases, and observes that the aorist is some- 
times put in the sense of the present where it cannot be rendered 
** to be wont," but still retains a sense very nearly related to 
its proper one , of an action completely finished, in which no 
alteration can be made. Gram, § 503 — 506. In short, the 
aorist is most commonly used for an indefinite past time, and 
when it is to be translated by the present, it generally, if not 
always denotes continuity of time. 



chap, viii.] a Proof of his Divinity, 403 

tions made upon Matt. iii. 17. do not altogether 
.apply to this passage, which is extracted from the 
account of our Lord's transfiguration ; yet, when 
we consider the astonishing nature of the trans- 
action, the stupendous display of almighty power 
exhibited in it, and the awful solemnity with which 
Jesus was declared to be " the beloved Son," it 
^eems scarcely reconcileable with the miraculous 
scene of his transfiguration to apply this title to his 
humanity. (Compare 2 Pet. i. 17.) 

Matt. xxvi. 63. " The high-priest said unto him, 
I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us 
whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God ?" 
The terms " the Christ," and " the Son of God," 
are frequently connected together as in this passage ; 
from which circumstance it has been inferred that 
they are synonymous. Were this the case, the 
sacred Writers are guilty of an idle and unmean- 
ing tautology. It may surely be urged with greater 
reason from their being so often joined together, 
that they are not equivalent expressions. The 
arrangement also denotes some peculiar excellence 
in the latter, which is not particularly expressed in 
the former. The appellation " Son of God," in the 
Socinian sense, was applicable to any pious indi- 
vidual, and if it were used in that sense in connec- 
tion with the title " the Christ," which was restricted 
to him alone who was to be the Messiah, the ar- 
rangement would be, " tell us whether thou be the 
Son of God, the Christ." The very reverse of this 
being adopted, shews that " the Christ/' was the 

Dd2 



404 The Sonship of Christy [chap, viii, 

title of an office which was to be sustained by him 
who is in a peculiar sense the Son of God. 

John v. 23. " That all men should honour the 
Son, even as they honour the Father." How could 
this be, except Jesus was, as a Son, co-eternal and 
co-essential with the Father ? (Compare chap. vii. 
sect, vi.) 

Rom. i. 3, 4. " Concerning his Son Jesus Christ 
our Lord, which was made of the seed of David 
according to the flesh, and declared to be the 
Son of God with power, according to the Spirit 
of holiness." Here is an evident contrast between 
the two clauses printed in capitals ; and in what 
can it consist, except between the human and divine 
natures of Christ ? If his being described as " the 
seed of David according to the flesh," denotes the 
human part of our Lord, of which there can be no 
doubt, his being " the Son of God according to the 
Spirit of holiness," must denote something opposed 
to that, which can be nothing else than his divine 
nature, in which nature, therefore, he is a Son. 
" According to the Spirit of holiness,'" says Mr. 
Locke, " is h0re manifestly opposed to, according 
" to the flesh, in the foregoing verse ; and so must 
" mean that more pure and spiritual part in him, 
" which by divine extraction he had immediately 
" from God ; unless this be so understood the anti- 
" thesis is lost*" This is a satisfactory reply to 

* Note in he. See Wolfius, Macknight, Hammond, Bengel, 
and Grotius on Mark ii. 8. and Bisterfeld, De XJno Deo % 
pi 131. and 327. et seq. 



chap, viii.] a Proof of his Divinity. 405 

the Socinians who assert that the word rendered 
declared signifies constituted. The verb of»£« un- 
doubtedly often has this meaning, but if it be so 
translated in this passage, the antithesis will be 
destroyed * 

The phrase " with power/' as Wolfius remarks, 
may either be joined with " declared/' or with " the 
Son of God/' in the former case it will signify 
powerfully, or efficaciously declared; in the latter, 
the miraculous power displayed by our Saviour. 
The former is the preferable interpretation, as the 
same phrase, \v hvd^a occurs Col. i. 29. in an ad- 
verbial sense, mightily, efficaciously. — The anti- 
thesis demonstrates that " the Spirit of holiness/' 
denotes our Lord's holy spiritual nature ; and this 
interpretation is confirmed by other passages of 
Scripture, Mark ii. 8. 1 Tim. iii. 16. Heb. ix. 14. 
1 Pet. iii. 18. The ancient Fathers frequently 
denominated Christ's divine nature, " Spirit," or 
" Spirit of God 

Rom. viii. 3. " God sending his own Son in the 
likeness of sinful flesh." This would be a strange 
mode of speaking had Jesus been a mere man, for 

* This verb probably means to declare, Acts xvii. 31. See 
Eisner, Observed. Sacra, p. 4. In Rom. i. 4. it is rendered 
" praedestinatus est," in the Vulgate, and " cognitus est," in 
the Syriac. 

+ " Certissimum est, Filium Dei, secundum Deitatis hypos- 
tasin, in scriptis Patrum titulo Spiritus, et Spiritus Dei, et 
Spiritus Sancti passim insigniri." Bull, Def. Fid. Nic* sect. i. 
cap. ii. § 6. Waterland, Importance, &c, p. 303. 



406 The Sonship of Christ, [chap. vih. 

how could he appear otherwise than " in the like- 
ness of sinful flesh ?" Does not this expression 
indicate that he might have come into the world 
some other way, which demonstrates his pre-ex- 
istence ? And does it not imply that God had a Son 
before his appearance in the likeness of sinful flesh, 
which proves his divine and eternal Sonship ? 

Rom. viii. 32. " He that spared not his own Son/' 
&c. " There is a great emphasis in these words, 
" which cannot, with any propriety, be applied to 
" any mere man, or most glorious creature what- 
" ever. His own Son is by way of eminence 
" and distinction from those who were the sons of 
w God by adoption, and the grace of his own natu- 
" ral Son : and the Father not sparing him, sup- 
" poses an antecedent relation of the highest kind- 
" ness, and most sacred endearment *-* The 
original is rov \$Um vUZ, which literally denotes 61 his 
proper Son," clearly distinguishing him, by this 
emphatic expression, from all others who may be 
called the sons of God. The strict and natural 
import of the term Uw, is one's own, what is pro- 
per to us : " it denotes property, appropriation, or 
peculiar relation," as explained by Parkhurst ; and, 
therefore, this expression could not be applied to him, 
except he were, in a peculiar and eminent manner, 
the Son of God. This derives no small confirmation 
from the scope of the Apostle's argument, which is 
to magnify the love of God displayed in the scheme 

* Black wall, Sacred Classics defended, P. H. chap, vL 



chap, viii.] a Proof of his Divinity. 407 

of redemption. But what was there so particularly 
kind and endearing in God's commissioning a frail 
and peccable man to declare his will ? Other pro- 
phets had gone before, the heralds of divine reve- 
lation, and highly distinguished in their lives for 
exemplary piety. If Jesus, on the other hand, 
were the proper Son of God, in a sense no other 
being ever was or can be, the love of God in not 
sparing him, and the benevolence of Christ in the 
voluntary resignation of himself, become most con- 
spicuous; they excite the fondest admiration, and 
challenge the return of the deepest gratitude, and 
will be the theme of celestial praise by the redeemed 
in the beatitude of heaven, throughout the endless 
ages of eternity. 

Gal. iv. 4 " But when the fulness of the time was 
come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, 
made under the law. 3 ' This is an evident allusion 
to the miraculous conception of Jesus, who is thus 
insinuated to be " the seed of the woman/ 9 who, 
according to the promise given at the fall, was to 
bruise the serpent's head, Gen. iii. 15. Nor will it 
make much difference in the case, if we adopt the 
translation approved by many writers, " God sent 
forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the 
law/ 5 It will still intimate a higher origin; for 
the assertion concerning a mere man, that he was 
" born of a woman," is too trifling to be attributed 
to inspiration. It can only be reconciled to sense 
and propriety on the supposition that Jesus pos- 
sessed a superior nature. Could it moreover be 



408 The Sonship of Christ, [chap. viir. 

said, that " God sent forth his Son, born of a 
woman/' except the Son had existed in that rela- 
tion previous to his being born of a woman ? 
Again, if Jesus is not a Son by nature, he must 
be by adoption. Now the Apostle reasons, " God 
sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under 
the law, to redeem them that were under the law, 
that we might receive the adoption of sons." Jesus 
was therefore a Son before the receiving the adop- 
tion of sons, which leads us to infer that, as he 
cannot be a Son by adoption, he is so in his divine 
nature by an eternal filiation *. 

Heb. iii. 5, 6. " Moses, verily, was faithful in all 
his house as a servant — But Christ, as a Son, over 
his own house/' This is illustrative of the position 
before laid down, v. 3. that Jesus was counted 
worthy of more glory than Moses. The Jewish 
lawgiver was faithful only as a servant, but Christ 
as a Son ; but if the latter were only a Son in a 
metaphorical sense, the contrast would be entirely 
destroyed ; he could only be a servant like Moses, 
and the grounds of his superiority as a Son, would 
be completely subverted : he must therefore be a 
Son in respect to his divine nature. In conformity 
with this conclusion, it is here said that Moses 
" was faithful in all his house," as a servant in the 

* " 'Avtov, sensu reciproco, proprium. Id quid sit, ex ipsa 
serie hujus loci patet : nam prius adoptionem, deinde Spiritum 
adoptionis accepinius. Ergo Christus ipse non ideo demum 
est Filius Dei, quia a Patre missus et unctus est," BengeJ, 
Gnomon in loc. 



chap, viii.] a Proof of his Divinity. 409 



Jewish church ; but Christ was faithful " over his 
own house/' over the Christian church as its Lord 
and Master *. 

1 John i. 3. " And truly our fellowship is with 
the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ." The 
Father and the Son being* thus connected together 
with respect to the Christian fellowship, naturally, 
though I acknowledge not necessarily, leads to the 
inference that this relation is eternal and essential. 

2 John 3. " Grace be with you, mercy, and 
peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord 
Jesus Christ the Son of the Father, in truth and 
love." Whitby, Estius, &c. refer the last clause to 
the Son, and explain it of his being the true and 
beloved Son of the Father. Though this should 
seem the most obvious interpretation, others con- 
strue the passage in this manner, " Grace, peace, 
and mercy, with truth and love, be with you/' &c. 
Be this as it may, the spiritual blessings of grace, 
mercy, and peace, are prayed for, without any in- 
timation of disparity, from the Father and the Son ; 

* By all means consult Whitby and Rosenmiiller. The be- 
ginning of v. 6. is rendered by Peirce, Macknight, &c. " Christ 
as a Son over his house," referring avrov to God : but even in 
this case, the argument of the Apostle requires us to under- 
stand that Christ was set over the house, i. e. the church of 
God, not as a servant, like Moses, but as a Son, and conse- 
quently as the Head and Master of it. The scope of the 
passage, however, establishes the standard version, " over his 
own house," particularly v. 3. where it is said that Christ built 
the house, or church of God, which therefore, is his own, 
inasmuch as he is constituted by the Father Lord of all. 



410 The Sonskip of Christ, [chap. viii. 

and as the Deity alone can bestow spiritual bless- 
ings, we cannot but infer that the relation of Father 
and Son exists in the Godhead. 

I have not exhausted my collections under this 
head, but as it seems unnecessary to produce more 
texts, I shall conclude it with an argument taken 
from the first chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews. 
The design of this part of the Apostle's discourse 
is to prove the superiority of the Son of God over 
the angels; and for this purpose he adduces his 
title of Son : " unto which of the angels said he 
at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I 
begotten thee ?" And again, " I will be to him a 
Father, and he shall be to me a Son ?" In what- 
ever way Jesus may be thought to be called " Son," 
in reference to his human nature, it can be no 
ground for his alleged pre-eminence, yet the Apos- 
tle deduces his superiority from the title of Son, 
and from his being begotten ; this filiation must, 
therefore, be applicable to him in his divine nature, 
or the Apostle reasons inconclusively *. The man- 
ner of expression employed in stating the argument, 
corroborates the same result. " Being made," says 
he, " so much better than the angels, as he hath 
by inheritance obtained a more excellent name 
than they that is the name of " Son," as is evi- 
dent from the following verses. Now, our Saviour 
can possess by inheritance this name of Son only 

* Compare sect. ii. p. 387. See Vitringa, De Generation* 
Fih p. 14. 



chap, viii.] a Proof of his Divinity. 41 1 

by reason of his descent from the Father, which 
proves his divine generation. Other beings may be 
sons of God by creation or adoption ; but they do 
not inherit that name, because they are not from the 
Father by generation *. — The Apostle also uses a 
mode of expression in verse 8, which is worthy of 
observation; " But unto the Son, he saith, Thy 
throne, O God, is for ever and ever." Does not 
this imply that Christ is a Son in the same nature 
by which he is God ? And does it not warrant us 
in styling our Saviour, " God the Son ;" God abso- 
lutely and essentially, yet Son by reason of the 
communication of this essence from the Father ? 

God is emphatically called the Father of Christ 

V. As Jesus Christ is called ee the Son," in so 
emphatic a manner, as to infer his divine and eter- 
nal Sonship, so is God called " his Father," in 
such an emphatic manner as to intimate a proper 
and peculiar degree of paternal relation. This 

* See Macknight in loc. and Poli Synop. I am aware that 
several commentators assert that x^ovopeu does not always 
mean to possess by hereditary right, but sometimes to acquire 
or obtain by any means. Should this be admitted, the verb 
must still have its proper signification of obtaining by inherit- 
ance in the passage before us, because that signification alone 
establishes the validity of the Apostle's argument to prove 
Christ's superiority to the angels from his title of Son. But I 
doubt whether xtojgoyojuto; does not always include the notion of 
hereditary right, or at least of legitimate possession, which 
comes to the same thing. See Leigh, Critica . Sacra, and 
Schleusner, Lex. in voc. 



I 



412 The Sonship of Christ, [chap. viii. 

may be collected from John v. 18. " The Jews 
sought the more to kill him, because he not only 
had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God 
was his Father, making himself equal with God." 
The original is ir»r^» Uw, his own proper Father, 
rendered by Campbell, " by calling God peculiarly 
his Father, had equalled himself with God." As 
the Jews made no scruple to call God their Father, 
(John viii. 41.) from which it would be wrong to 
infer that they equalled themselves with God, there 
must be something peculiar and energetic in the 
term *'<W, whereby he calls God his Father, in a 
sense applicable to no other. They understood him 
to assume an equality with God, by saying that 
" God was his Father but " in order to draw 
" this conclusion," as Bishop Pearce observes, 
" from Jesus's having said, that God was his Fa- 
" ther, they must have understood him to mean, 
" that God was his Father by eternal generation ; 
" for no other generation (even in their gross way 
" of thinking) could be supposed capable of making 
" him equal with God * " 

John v. 26. " As the Father hath life in himself, 

* Commentary in loc. " Eteniin war {pet intelligere aiiter 
non poterant, nisi quatenus Pater Jesu erat eo sensu, quo non 
est Pater aliorum, adeoque ratione naturae et attributorum." 
Tittman, Meletem, Sac. in Jok. p. 200. See Campbell's ex- 
cellent note. St. John uses the term 7&o« in thirteen other 
places, and always in the sense of ones own, what is proper to 
us, viz. ch. i. 11. 41. iv. 44. v. 43. viii. 44. x. 3, 4. 12. xiii. 1. 
xv. 19, xvi. 32. xix. 27. 



chap, vin.] a Proof of his Divinity, 413 

so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself." 
Whatever may be the meaning of the term " life/' 
in this text, the Son hath it in himself to the same 
extent and degree that the Father hath it in him- 
self Now " life/' when spoken of the Father, 
necessarily includes perfection and infinitude. The 
Son, however, has this " life" in a perfect and 
infinite degree in himself, which infers his divinity ; 
and as it was " given to him" by the Father, he 
must have his divinity by communication from the 
Father, which infers a proper filiation. (Compare 
chap. v. sect, iii.) 

John xx. 17. " I ascend unto my Father and 
your Father, and to my God and your God." This 
is supposed by many to be spoken in his human 
nature, and as it is undoubtedly in the same nature 
that he calls the Father, " my God," Matt, xxvii.46. 
and probably Revel, iii. 12. the only other places 
where he uses this expression, the opinion may be 
thought not destitute of foundation. At any rate, 
it does not at all favour the Unitarians ; for the 
most that can be concluded from it is, that he is not 
God in the nature that ascended. So far must be 
allowed, even if the expressions relate to his hu- 
manity ; but I am of opinion, they have reference 
to his super-human nature ; and my reason is, that 
our Lord does not say our Father and God, but my 
Father and God, your Father and God, implying a 
different manner of relationship; his Father and 
God by an eternal generation, whereby he is God 



414 The Sonship of Christ, [chap. viii. 

of God; their Father and God by creation and 
adoption # . 

Rom. xv. 6. " With one mind, and one mouth 
glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus 
Christ." So 2 Cor. i. 3. xi. 31. Ephes. i. 3. 
1 Pet. i. 3. in all which passages it appears to be 
intimated that God is in a peculiar sense the Father 
of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of him in a 
manner which he is the Father of no other person ; 
and therefore not by a figurative, but by a true and 
proper paternity. 

Christ is the Only-begotten Son. 

VI. John i. 14. " The Word was made flesh, 
and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the 
glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, full 
of grace and truth." This refers to the preceding 
description of the Word, who in the beginning was 
with God, and was God, and who is here said to 
have been made flesh, and to be the only -begotten 
of the Father. The term " only-begotten," then, 
most naturally refers to the Word in his ante- 
mundane state, and if he was the only-begotten 
previous to his incarnation, it must relate to his 
divine nature f . 

* The excellent Bengel notes, " Palrem appellat, quatenus 
habet ex eo Ortum ; Deum, (nunquam, Dominum suum) qua- 
tenus eum habet pro Fine suo — nec tamen dicit, nostrum; 
sed meum et vestrum. Nos per ilium : Ille, singularissime et 
primo." See Pearson, On the Creed, vol. i. p. 53. 

f The particle u$, as, does not always denote similitude, but 



chap. viii. J a Proof of his Divinity. 415 

John i. 18. " No man hath seen God at any 
time ; the only-begotten Son which is in the bosom 
of the Father, he hath declared him." Our Lord's 
being " in the bosom of the Father/' may possibly 
only denote the utmost familiarity and love, (Luke 
xvi. 22, 23.) yet it seems more probable that it inti- 
mates the Word's co-existence from eternity in the 
relation of a Son with the Father. He " was in 
the beginning with God/' (v. 2.) which shews that 
he existed from eternity ; and he " is in the bosom 
of the Father," which, as the image is taken from 
the usual way in which the affection of parents is 
manifested to their children, seems to imply a divine 
paternity in the first Person of the blessed Trinity. 

The appellation of only-begotten is given to our 
Lord, John iii. 16. 18. 1 John iv. 9. which have 
been illustrated in the second section of this chapter. 
It is said, however, that the term povoyivviq translated 
only-begotten means no more than well-beloved, 
and is not used by the Apostle in reference to the 
peculiar Sonship of Christ, but merely to express a 
higher degree of affection. To determine this point 
we must have recourse to Scripture usage. It only 
occurs in four other places, besides those referred 
to, Luke vii. 12. viii. 42. ix. 38. Heb. xi. 17. In 
the three first it evidently means an only, or only- 

sometimes certainty , reality; revera, vere. Schleusner in voc. 
15. Glass, Phil. Sac. p. 436. Whitby, Kuinoel, and Poli 
Synop. in loc. The meaning then is, that the Word was truly 
the only-begotten of God the Father. Bull, Judicium Eccles* 
Cathol, cap. v. § 4. 



416 The Sonship of Christ, [chap, mi, 

begotten child ; and in Hebrews, Isaac is called the 
only-begotten son of Abraham, because he was the 
only child he had by his wife Sarah. In the Sep- 
tuagint it occurs four times, Ps. xxii. 20. xxxv. 17. 
xxv. 16. Judg. xi. 34. From the two first, nothing 
certain perhaps can be concluded ; but in Ps. xxv. 
16. " for I am desolate, ^oi/oytm, and afflicted/* it 
conveys the notion of being alone, left destitute, 
and solitary ; and in the passage of Judges it un- 
questionably means an only child. This sense, 
therefore is fully established by Scripture usage *. 
Parkhurst's idea of referring the term to the hu- 
manity of Christ, which, being begotten of God as 
no other man ever was, is the only-begotten Son of 
God, is altogether indefensible ; since some circum- 
stances attending its application to Jesus, shew, 
that the character of being the Only-begotten, be- 
longed to him previous to his incarnation. And 
when it is further considered that, though angels 
and men are sometimes improperly and metapho- 
rically called sons of God, not one of them is ever 
styled the only- begotten Son of God, its reference 
to the divine nature of Christ cannot, in fairness, be 
denied f . 

* The corresponding Hebrew term, Tn>, generally denotes 
only, unicus, but not always, I think, as appears from Prov. 
iv. 3. See my note there. 

+ On this subject, see Bishop Bull, Judg. Eccles. Cathol. 
cap. v. § 4. Waterland's Importance of the Doctrine of the 
Trinity, cap. vi. p. 241. Nares, Remarks, p. 207. 



chap, viu.] a Proof of hu Divinity. 



417 



Confessions in Christ as the Son of God. 

VII. The converts to the religion of our Saviour, 
often expressly declared their faith in terms, which 
not only directly acknowledged their belief in Jesus 
as " the Christ/' but also as 44 the Son of God and 
that in such an especial manner as to imply his 
divinity. 

Matt. xiv. 22 — 38. The circumstances of the 
narrative here recorded, ought to be taken into con- 
sideration. Jesus went to the ship " walking on 
the sea/' (v. 25.) ; he communicated to Peter the 
power of doing the same, and upon his beginning 
to sink, Jesus 44 stretched forth his hand and caught 
him." When they were come into the shif, the 
wind ceased ; " then they that were in the ship 
came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth 
thou art the Son of God/' (v. S3.) All the cir- 
cumstances go to prove that this confession amounts 
to an acknowledgment of our Lord's divine nature. 
They had witnessed such a display of miraculous 
power as must have convinced them of his being a 
divine Person ; and their confession must have been 
designed to signify their persuasion that he was in 
reality what he represented himself to be, the Son 
of God. It is conjectured by some commentators, 
that the mariners who made this declaration were 
Pagans; but this is only conjecture, destitute of 
any support ; and even on the supposition of their 
being Pagans, they must have had abundant oppor- 
tunities of learning that Jesus asserted himself to 

E e 



418 The Sonship of Christ, [chap. vih. 

be the Son of God, and of course, would use the 
appellation in the sense he had applied it to him- 
self* 

Matt. xvi. 15—17. " Whom say ye that I am? 
And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the 
Christ, the Son of the living Goi>. And Jesus 
answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon 
Barjona : for flesh and blood hath not revealed it 
unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. " The 
declaration of Peter, then, was the result of a divine 
revelation, which proves that the title of " Son of the 
living- God," is not equivalent to that of " the Mes- 
siah.*' There was no need of a divine revelation to 
point him out as the expected Messiah ; for, before 
that time, five thousand men had declared him to 
be that Prophet who should come into the world. 
(Compare Matt. xiv. 15. et seq. with John vi, 14.) 
St. Peter, therefore, must have confessed him not 
only to be the expected Messiah, but to be the Son 
of God as to his divine nature and origin f . 

* See Middleton, Doct. of Gr* Art. p. 228* where this point 
is most ably treated. 

+ Mark and Luke omit the latter part of Peter's declaration, 
the former making him to say, " Thou art the Christ," and the 
latter, " the Christ of God," (Mark viii. 29. Luke ix. 20.) ; 
and, consistently with this omission, both omit our Saviour's 
answer, " Flesh and blood hath not revealed this to thee, but 
my Father which is in heaven." This plainly intimates that our 
Lord's answer referred to Peter's fieclaring him ** the Son of 
the living God." If this title had been equivalent to M Mes- 
siah," they would not have omitted our Saviour's reply. Wil- 
son, Mtthod of explaining the New Testament y fyc. p. 93. 



chap, viii.] a Proof of his Divinity. 419 

Matt, xxvii. 54. " When the centurion and they 
that were with him, watching Jesus,, saw the earth- 
quake, and those things that were done, they feared 
greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God," 
It is generally supposed that the centurion was a 
heathen, and consequently that this confession goes 
no farther than to declare Jesus to be a Son of God, 
as it is in Campbell's version, or a Son of a God, 
as it is rendered by Pearce and the Unitarian trans- 
lators. Nothing can be concluded from the absence 
of the articles, (see note, p. 400.) ; neither is it 
certain that the centurion was a heathen ; he might 
have been, like Cornelius, a devout man, and one 
that feared God, looking for the kingdom of the 
Messiah. " Besides ; although a God was a familiar 
" phrase with the ancients, a Son of a God was a title 
" to which they were perfect strangers; and that, 
" consequently, the expression being borrowed 
" from the Jews, must have been applied in like 
" manner as they applied it, and as they had just 
" before applied it in the hearing of the centurion, 
" or, to speak more correctly, the centurion being 
M convinced (by what he had beheld) of the truth 
" of our Lord's assertions, declared his belief in 
" that truth, by ascribing to him the title which he 
" had claimed with his dying breath, and for claim - 
" ing which he had been sentenced to die; and, 
u consequently, used the phrase in the sense in 
" which our Lord himself applied it, whatever 
" sense that might be,— Truly, this man must 



420 The Sonship of Christ, [chap, vin. 

" have been that which he called himself, The Son 
iS of God*.'" 

John i. S3, 34. " — he that sent me to baptize 
with water,, the same said unto me, Upon whom 
thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining 
on him, the same is he which haptizeth with the 
Holy Ghost. And I saw, and bare record, that this 
is the Son op God." The argument I propose is 
built upon the clause in italics, To dispense the 
gifts and graces of the Holy Ghost belongs to the 
Deity alone, and he whom the Scripture represents 
as performing this, must be really God, (chap. v. 
sect, xxxvi.); hence, when the Baptist bears re- 
cord that Jesus is he which baptizeth with the Holy 
Ghost, and is the Son of God, he is to be under- 
stood as using this title in a sense significant of 
divinity. 

John i. 49. " Nathanael answered and said unto 
him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God, thou art 
the King of Israel." This confession of Nathanael, 
was occasioned by our Lord's remarking to him, 
" Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast 
under the fig-tree, I saw thee," (v. 48.) What the 
particular circumstances were to which our Saviour 
alludes, we are not informed ; but Nathanael's 
reply bespeaks the fullest conviction, that they 

* Dean Magee, On Atonement, Postscript to App. p. 23. 
There is no proof, as Middleton observes, (Gr. Art. p. 230.) 
that wo? h Qsov was a term commonly significant of Pagan ad- 
miration. 



chap, viii.] U Proof of his Divinity. 4$1 

could be disclosed only to the eye of Omnipotence ; 
and in acknowledging- Jesus to be the Son of God, 
he acknowledged him to be possessed of omni- 
science. The language of Nathanael,, therefore, 
amounts to a confession in the deity of Jesus, in 
the character of Son of God, which character could 
only be derived to him by a proper filiation. 

It has been supposed that Nathanael acknow- 
ledged Jesus as the Son of God and King of Israel, 
before he became a disciple ; whence it has been 
concluded that these must have been the established 
titles of the Messiah, among the Jews of that age. 
" On examining the whole account, however, it is 
" found that Nathanael uttered this declaration two 
¥ days after our Saviour had been announced as 
" the Messiah and Son of God, at the baptism of 
" John ; he seems also to have been near the 
" place, and to have had the means of being in- 
" formed of the circumstances attending the bap- 
" tism, from one of John's disciples : and a know- 
" ledge of these circumstances, acquired in this 
" manner, combined with the proof, which our Lord 
" immediately gave, of a foresight more than hu- 

man, probably induced him to exclaim, ' Thou 
" art the Son of God, thou art the King of Israel/ 
" Thou art really possessed of the divine nature, 
" and invested with the royal office which John 
" has just proclaimed *." 



* Wilson, Method of explaining the New Testament, from 
the early Opinions of Jews and Christians, p. 86,— In John 



482 The Sons/iip of Christ, [chap. viii. 

John xL 27. " She saitli unto him, Yea, Lord : 
I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, 
which should come into the world." This confes- 
sion of Martha, just before the resurrection of her 
brother Lazarus, is remarkable and important. In 
the discourse with our Lord, which led to it, she 
declares her assurance of his sovereign power, and 
acknowledges him as " the resurrection and the 
life as the author and source of life, possessing* 
the power of communicating and restoring life, 
and therefore, the Son of God in a peculiar and 
^eminent manner. 

John xx. 31. " These are written, that ye might 
believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God/' 
The pronoun t&Ut«, these, refers, it is clear, to ail 
the things written in this Gospel, among which the 
introductory verses, and many other passages, are 
declaratory of our Lord's divinity *. These are 
written, the Evangelist says, in order that we might 
believe that " Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God 
and as it has been already shewn, that these two 

vi. 69. Peter says, " We believe and are sure, that thou art that 
Christ, the Son of the living God but Griesbach's text 
is, " We believe, and are sure, that thou art the Hoiy One of 
God f he, however, places his mark to shew that the emen- 
dation is only probably preferable to the received reading, in 
defence of which much may be said. See Tittman, Meletem. 
Sac, p. 284, — Another confession is in Acts viii. 37. which 
Griesbach expunges from the text, and he is borne out in it by 
very strong evidence. 

* Tittman, Mektem. Sac, in Joh. p 686. 



chap, viii.] a Proof of his Divinity. & C M 

titles are not equivalent, the last must imply divi- 
nity, or St. John's affirmation would be utterly false. 
• — These instances sufficiently establish the position, 
that the sacred narrative contains several confes- 
sions in Jesus as the Son of God in a sense appro- 
priate to him alone. 

Confession of Devils. 

VIII. It has been the generally received opi- 
nion, that malignant spirits, at the Christian sera, 
were allowed to enter the bodies of men, and afflict 
them with the most dreadful tortures ; but an opi- 
nion, on the contrary, has been advanced in modern 
limes, that the demoniacs recorded in the Gospels, 
were persons afflicted with lunacy, epilepsy, and 
other bodily diseases. On this side of the question, 
are to be found many highly respectable names, 
both in this country and abroad ; yet when we con- 
sider that the sacred narrative of these possessions, 
in its obvious sense, speaks of a supernatural 
agency; that actions and desires are ascribed to the 
demons, and contradistinguished from those of the 
person possessed ; that conversations are held with 
them; and that accounts are given how they were 
disposed of after expulsion ; it seems scarcely con^ 
sistent with reason, and a due regard for the Scrip* 
tures, to deny the existence of demoniacal posses- 
sion. I do not mean, however, to insist upon the 
confession of demons in evidence of Christ's proper 
Sonship ; because it would be requisite to the va- 
lidity of the argument, to prove the reality of such 



424 The Sonskip of Christ, [chap, vim: 

possessions, which would lead into a discussion 
foreign from the design of this publication. Those 
who believe in the agency of evil spirits upon the 
demoniacs, will regard the following passages as a 
strong attestation to the proper filiation of Christ, 
viz. Matt. viii. 29. Mark i. 24. iii. 11. Luke iv. 34. 
41. viii. 28* 

The Title Son of God understood by the Jews to 
imply Divinity. 

IX. It is most important to know in what sense 
the title " Son of God/' was understood by the 
Jews. Our Lord, in the fulfilment of his divine 
mission, lived among them, and addressed them in 
their own language; they must consequently be 
the best interpreters of the idioms and forms of 
speech to which they were accustomed f . Now, 
we have irrefragable evidence that the cotemporaries 
of Jesus understood the title " Son of God" in a 
sense implying divinity. He was condemned to 
die, because he made himself the Son of God ; " We 
have a law, said the Jews, and by our law he ought 

* An abstract of the arguments for and against demoniacal 
possession, is given in Doddridge's Lectures, Lect. 213. ed. 
Kippis ; Macknight's Essay prefixed to his Harmony ; Kuinoel, 
Comment in Matt. iv. 24. and Jahn's excellent Archcelogia 
Biblica, § 192 — 197. See also Lardner, Case of the Demoniacs* 

t See a most excellent Sermon on the Necessity of Jewish 
Tradition to an Interpreter of the New Testament, by the 
learned Blomfield, and also his Dissertation upon the Tra- 
ditionary Knowledge of a promised Redeemer. Cambridge, 
1819, 



chap, viii.] a Proof of his Divinity. 425 

to die, because he made himself the Son of God/' 
(John xix. 7.) From the parallel passages in the 
other Evangelists, we learn that the crime for which 
he suffered death was the crime of blasphemy : 
" Then the high-priest rent his clothes, saying*, He 
hath spoken blasphemy ; what further need have 
we of witnesses? Beho!d, now ye have heard his 
blasphemy. What think ye ? They answered and 
said, He is guilty of death." (Matt. xxvi. 65, 66. 
Mark xiv. 64.) 

The fact, then, is incontrovertible that our Lord 
suffered death for making himself the Son of God, 
which the Jews accounted blasphemy. But in 
calling himself the Son of God, he could not be 
guilty of blasphemy, except this title implied an 
assumption of divinity. Whence it follows that the 
phrase " Son of God," is applied to our Lord, both 
by himself and the Jews, in reference to his divine 
nature, and therefore constitutes a proof of his 
deity. The only branch of the argument requir- 
ing any further confirmation is, that the blasphemy 
of which he was guilty in calling himself the Son 
of God, consisted in an assumption of divinity ; and 
this is established by evidence the most complete 
and satisfactory. 

In the first place, it is inconceivable how the 
title " Son of God," could be construed into blas- 
phemy, except it be claimed in a sense implying 
divinity. This appellation was sometimes given to 
men of eminent piety and worth ; nay, the whole 
Jewish nation styled themselves the sons of God, 



426 The Sonship of Christ, [chap. vih. 

and, in this figurative sense, Jesus might have 
claimed it, without subjecting himself to the charge 
of blasphemy. The accusation, then, could have 
had no foundation, if this title was not applied by 
our Lord in the strict and literal sense, significative 
of divinity. " The Jews pronounced Jesus guilty 
" of a capital crime by their law, because he had 
" declared himself the Son of God : and we shall 
" in vain search for any written statute, or any tra- 
" ditionary maxim, making it blasphemy and death 
" for any one to declare himself, in metaphorical 
" language, a virtuous man, an Israelite, a man 
" favoured by God, or a mere man, like ourselves. 
" No one acquainted with the state of opinion, at 
u that time, in Judaea^ or, who has attended to the 
" evangelical history of John the Baptist and our 
" Saviour, will affirm that the Jews would condemn 
" any man to death, for simply declaring himself, 
" in metaphorical language, a prophet, inspired 
" and commissioned by God*/' Yet, the Jews 
did condemn him to die, because he made himself 
the Son of God ; and therefore, they must have 
understood this title to be claimed by him in a sense 
applicable to no human being, a sense, intimating 
a participation in the divine nature. 

Secondly, on other occasions, when our Lord 
declared himself the Son of God, the Jews under- 
stood him to assume to himself divinity, and accord- 

* Wilson's Method of explaining the New Testament^ 

p. 13, 



chap. vin. ] a Proof of his Divinity. 427 

ingly accused him of blasphemy. " My Father 
worketh hitherto, says he, and I work. Therefore, 
the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he 
not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that 
God was his Father (his own proper Father, J 
making himself equal with God," (John v. 17, 18.) 
—At another time, a body of Jews collected round 
him in the temple, in Solomon's porch, and when 
our Saviour, in his address to them, asserted that 
he and his Father are one, " the Jews took up 
stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, 
Many good works have I shewed you from my 
Father ; for which of these works do you stone 
me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good 
work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy ; and 
because that thou, being a man, makest thyself 
God," John x. 31—33. It is evident from this 
narrative that the Jews understood our Lord's re- 
presenting himself to be the Son of God, as equi- 
valent to making himself God, which constituted 
the blasphemy for which they took up stones to 
stone him. 

For these reasons, we may, with certainty, con- 
clude that the Jews understood the title " Son of 
God," claimed by our Lord, as an assumption of 
divinity, which was the blasphemy for which they 
condemned him to death. " The great truth, there- 
" fore/' says Bishop Burgess, " for which Christ 
" died, was not, that there will be another life 
u after this, (which the Unitarians seem to suppose 
" was the principal object of his mission,) for the 



428 The Sonskip of Christ, [chap. viii. 

" high-priests and Pharisees, and the general body 
" of the Jewish nation, were already believers in 
" that doctrine ; but that he was the Son of God, 
" the Son of the Blessed, and that in a sense, 
" which his accusers called blasphemy, by 4 making; 
" himself God/ and i equal with God/ Christ, 
" therefore, died a martyr to the truth — the great 
" truth, which Unitarians reject," — the truth of his 
" divinity *." 

The Title " Son of Man" implies Divinity. 

X. Our Lord is very often distinguished in the 
New Testament by the titles " Son of God" and 
*' Son of Man but though the former is used by 
all who either address him, or speak of him, the 
latter is applied only by himself, by St. Stephen, 
Acts vii, 56. by St. Paul, Heb. ii. 6. and by St. 
John, Revel, i. 13. xiv. 14. The phrase occurs 
above eighty times, and, with these four exceptions, 
never used by any other than our Lord himself, 
who, by this appropriation of the title, pointed out 
himself as the Son of Man, foretold by the prophet 
Daniel, vii. IS, 14. His using it so constantly and 
emphatically, is wholly inconsistent with the notion 
of his simple humanity. Why so earnestly incul- 
cate that he was really man, if no other than a 

* Brief Memorial, p. 70. On this subject, see the same 
author's two Sermons ; Dr. Magee, Atonement, Post, to App. 
p. 38. Wilson, Method of explaining the New Testament, cap. i. 
et seq. Bishop Tomliue, Theology, vol. ii. Art. II. Selden, De 
Jure Nat. et Gent, lib. ii. cap. xii. 



chap, viii.] a Proof of his Divinity. 439 

human origin could be ascribed to him ? " The 
" title ' Son of Man/ " says Bishop Middleton, 
" has every where a reference to the incarnation 
" of Christ, and is, therefore, significant of His 
u acquaintance with human weakness I have, 
" indeed, observed, that in a majority of places, in 
*' which our Saviour calls himself the Son of Man, 
" (and he is never, in the New Testament, so 
" called by others before his ascension,) the alln- 
" sion is either to his present humiliation, or to 
" his future glory : and if this remark be true, we 
" have, though an indirect, yet a strong and per- 
" petual declaration, that the human nature did not 
" originally belong to Him, and was not properly 
" his own. He who shall examine the passages 
" throughout, with a view to this observation, will 
" be able duly to estimate its value : for myself, I 
" scruple not to aver, that I consider this single 
" phrase, so employed, as an irrefragable proof of 
" the pre-existence and divinity of Christ*." 

XT. The result of this inquiry is, that Jesus Christ 
is not styled the Son of God, by reason only of his 
miraculous conception, or in consequence of his 
being the Messiah foretold by the prophets, but 
because he is strictly and properly the Son of God, 
in a far higher sense than is applicable to any 

* Doet. of Gr. Art. p. 354. See also Dr. Magee, Atone- 
ment, Post, to App. p. 31. Nares, Remarks, p. 49. Bengel, 
Gnomon in Matt, xvi. 13. Schleusner, Lex, a»$f«wa?. 3. 



430 The Sonship of Christ, [chap. viii. 

angel or created being-. It is a title, as we have 
seen, used by the sacred Writers, as applicable to 
his divine nature, and therefore it implies his divi- 
nity. It must certainly import something ana- 
logous to the relation between an earthly father 
and son ; and in this relationship the idea of equa- 
lity of nature is necessarily included. As the title 
" Son of Man," shews that our Lord had the 
nature of man, and therefore was man, so the title 
14 Son of God" proves that he hath the nature of 
God, and therefore is God : otherwise the term Son 
in the appellation " Son of God," would be entirely 
destitute of meaning *. The Son, having derived 
his essence by a divine and eternal filiation from 
the Father, must, as possessing the essence of the 
Father, be substantially God. That which ema- 
nates from the great First Cause, after the mys- 
sterious manner denominated generation, must be 
essentially like him. Generation is the vital pro- 
duction of another in the same nature ; the very 
idea of it implies identity of nature ; and hence, 
the Son, which is the Word of the Father, be- 
gotten FROM EVERLASTING OF THE FATHER, is THE 
VERY AND ETERNAL GoD, OF ONE SUBSTANCE WITH THE 

Father f . 

* " Verus hominis filius est ejusdem cum Patre suo essen- 
tia ; ergo et verus Dei Filius est ejusdem cum suo Patrae es- 
sentia : quia essentiam suara communicare perfectio est, non 
imperfectio." Bisterfeid, Be Uno Deo, p. 554. 

f Church Article II. So invincible is the argument of our 
Lord's divinity, drawn from his filiation, that it has been ad- 

1 



chap, viii.] a Proof of his Divinity. 4#l 

Of the nature and mode of the Son's origination, 
the human mind can form no conception ; the sa- 
cred oracles, however, assure us of the fact ; and, 
as language is the medium of thought, some word 
or words must be selected to express this origina- 
tion, and none are better adapted for this purpose, 
or more agreeable to Scripture than the terms Ge- 
neration, Filiation, or Sonship ; terms not intended 
to intimate a physical generation ; but to express 
the unknown manner in which the Son's eternal 
personal existence is in and of the Father. To 
object, that eternal generation is a self-contradic- 
tion, the genitor being necessarily prior to the 
generated, is to apply to the Creator notions de- 
rived from the generative process in the creature : 
whereas, if the Son be a Person in an eternal and 
immutable Godhead, his personality must have been 
from eternity ; for an origination of it in time, 
is incompatible with the immutability of the Deity. 
The unalterable perfections of God require us to 
believe, that, what he now is he always was, being 
always Father as always God. If the Son, then, 

vanced by most of the ancient Fathers, and by many learned 
defenders of the faith in subsequent ages. Bisterfeld, De 
Uno Deo, lib. i. sect. ii. cap. xxxi. lib. ii. sect. ii. cap. Hi. 
Bishop Pearson, On the Creed, vol. i. p. 219. et seq. Dr. Sher- 
lock, Socinian Controversy, chap. iv. § 5. p. 189. Hawtrey's- 
0£«»Spw9rof, p. 3. et seq. Bishop Bull, Def. Fid. Nic. sect. iv. 
cap. ii. § 2. and 4. Dr. Randolph, Vindication, P. II. p. 10. 
Whittaker, Origin of Arianism, p. 172. For the sentiments of 
the Fathers, see note to my Translation of Proverbs, ch. viii. 24. 
from which many of the subsequent observations are taken, 



432 



The Sonship of Christ, [chap, vnr. 



is begotten of the Father, we must acknowledge 
him to have been begotten from everlasting ; other- 
wise, we shall fall into the absurdity of denying 
the immutability and eternal agency of the Al- 
mighty. Little dependence, it is granted, can be 
placed in metaphysical reasonings concerning the 
nature and union of Persons in the holy Trinity ; 
our ideas on this abstruse subject have no other 
firm basis to rest upon than the Scriptures ; and, 
as this important, though mysterious doctrine of 
the Son's eternal filiation is revealed in them, we 
ought to receive it as an infallible truth, without 
presumptuously attempting to explain a subject so 
far above the grasp of finite understandings *. 

Some Trinitarians, it is true, reject the Sonship 
of our Lord in his divine nature f. How the sup- 

* " It is affirmed by some writers in this controversy, that 
ff eternal generation, or derivation, implies a manifest contra* 
*' diction. This was also the notion of Arius, who concluded, 
et that because the Son received his existence from the Father, 
tl therefore there must have been a time when he was not. 
" They who say so are obliged, by unavoidable consequence, 
" to maintain this most unphilosophical assertion, that the 
* e Father and First Cause, who hath been what he is, su- 
" premely wise, good, and powerful, from all eternity, yet 
" could not act, and exert his wisdom, goodness, and power 
*' from all eternity. But this is what they can never prove: 
" and the contrary opinion, namely, the eternal agency of the 
*' Almighty, is far more reasonable, and is attended with no 
" other difficulties than those which equally attend a past 
" eternity" Dr. Jortin, Remarks on Keel. History, lib. iii. 
See Horsley, Tracts, p. 513. et sejq. 

f Roellj Diss. Theol. de Generatione Filii ; Bryant, Phih 



chap, viii ] a Proof of his Divinity. 433 

porters of this hypothesis can avoid either the error 
of Tritheism, on the one hand, or of Sabellianism, 
on the other, it is difficult to conceive. To assert 
three co-ordinate Gods, and they must be so if 
all are unoriginated, is to violate the Unity; to 
reject a real personal distinction is to subvert the 
Trinity : it is, therefore, in my apprehension, im- 
possible to deny the Son's origination, to deny that 
he is God of God, " without confounding the Per- 
sons," or u dividing the Substance." 

An explicit profession of eternal generation may 
not, perhaps, be absolutely necessary to a right 
faith ; and if any prefer calling our Lord " the 
eternal Word," rather than " the eternal Son of 
God," meaning thereby, a distinct Person, and con- 
substantial with the Father, whose Word he is, 
there appears nothing in it contrary to the orthodox 
belief*. Our Lord's eternal personal existence in 
and of the Father will be preserved; and while 
this is done, the difference between " Word of God" 
and " Son of God/' is only nominal. All that is 
meant by " eternal generation/' " eternal filiation/* 
" eternal communication of the divine essence/' 
and tfre like, is to express the Son's eternal origina- 
tion from the paternal Fountain of Deity, a truth 

JudcBus, p. 253. Faber, Horce Mosaicce, vol. ii. sect. ii. cap. i> 
Hawtrey, ©s«>^p«9ro?, p. 39. et seq. and Sequel to the same ; Dr. 
Adam Clarke, Note on Luke i. 35. Murray, Clear Display, fyc. 
P. II. sect. iii. 

* Dr. Waterland, Defence, Qu. 8. p. 161. See Oxlee, On 
the Trinity and Incarnation, cap. xv. 

Ff . 



/ 



43i The Sonship of Christ, [chap, viii. 



1 think fully established in this chapter ; and pro- 
vided this truth, that the Son is of the Father, God 
of God, be secured, the terms employed for this 
purpose are of little moment. It is frivolous to 
object to, or wrangle about terms, when the thing 
intended by them is acknowledged. At the same 
time, it is my firm conviction, that the phraseology 
of antiquity, and of the public Formularies of the 
Established Church, is strictly consonant with Scrip- 
ture. From the preceding inquiry, it is evident, 
that the title " Son of God" is applied to our Lord 
in his divine nature, that he was a Son before his 
incarnation, and that he is " the only -begotten Son 
of God we, therefore, speak the sense of Scrip- 
ture, when, in the words of the venerable Nicene 
Creed, we profess our belief " in one God the 
Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and 
of all things visible and invisible, and in one Lord 
Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, Begot- 
ten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, 
Light of Light, Very God of very God, Begotten 
not made, Being of one substance with the Father, 
By whom all things were made/' 

Though the denial of the eternal filiation of the 
Son is, in my judgment, an error, and an error 
replete with danger, as leading either to Tritheisrn 
or Sabellianism ; yet, let not this declaration of my 
own belief be construed into an impeachment of 
the faith of those who maintain a different opinion. 
What candid and reflecting believer in Jesus will 
refuse the right hand of fellowship to those who 



chap. viii. j a Proof of his Divinity, 435 

worship the Trinity in Unity,, though they may 
differ from him, in some particulars, on a point 
confessedly so mysterious ? While the plain, fun- 
damental truth, that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost 
are strictly divine and uncreated, and yet are not 
three Gods, but one God, is received with full assent 
of the mind, and reverence of the heart, other con- 
siderations are of minor importance, and ought not 
to interrupt the harmony of the Christian Church. 



Ff2 



CHAPTER IX. 



Christ's subordination to the father. 



Intimately connected with the doctrine sup- 
ported in the preceding chapter, is the Distinction 
of Order existing among the three Persons of the 
ever-blessed Trinity. Though this subject more 
properly belongs to a professed treatise on the whole 
Trinity, I cannot forbear adding a few observations ; 
especially as this Subordination appears to be lost 
sight of in some recent publications ; a circumstance 
the more to be lamented, as it inevitably leads either 
to Tritheism or Sabellianism. 

A belief in our Redeemer's humanity is essential 
to the orthodox faith; and his consequent infe- 
riority to the Father, as touching his Manhood, is 
universally allowed by Trinitarians. When our 
adversaries labour to establish the humanity of 
Christ, they only support our own creed ; we assert 
that he was " perfect Man," as strenuously as them- 
selves, being persuaded, that the apparently contra- 
dictory representations of our Lord's person and 
jharacter can only be reconciled by an acknow- 
ledgment of his two-fold nature^ (ch. v, sect, xxvii.) 



chap, ix.] Christ's Subordination, #c. 437 



We also believe in the Son's subordination to the 
Father, even in respect of his divine nature. Of 
the three co-eternal and co-essential Persons, the 
Father is first in order, the Son second in order, 
and the Holy Ghost third in order; and this dis- 
tinction arises, of necessity, from the scriptural 
doctrine of the Trinity. 

That three distinct Subsistences or Persons exist 
in one Godhead, is the unanimous voice of the 
Scriptures, and of the ancient Fathers. Of these 
Persons only One can be self-existent and unorigi- 
nated, the cause and original of all things, who is 
denominated God the Father; for a plurality of 
persons so subsisting would necessarily infer a mul- 
tiplicity of Gods. The Scriptures declare, that the 
Son is really and truly God, co essential and co- 
existent with the Father; but the Father alone is 
self-existent and unoriginated ; therefore, the Son 
must have derived his being and essence from the 
Father. Now, as the Divine Essence, embracing 
all perfections, is indivisible, the communication of 
it must be total and plenary, so that the Son is " of 
one Substance with the Father :" and as the same 
perfections require us to acknowledge that God is 
immutable, that what he now is he always was, it 
follows that the essence which he had from all 
eternity, he from all eternity communicated ; b sing 
always Father as always God ; and, therefore, the 
Son was " begotten from everlasting, the very and 
eternal God." But, if the Son were unoriginated, 
it would constitute him a separate^ independent, 



438 Christ's Subordination [chap. ix. 

self- existent God, the assertion of which leads di- 
rectly to the error of Tritheism ; since, to make 
three independent co-ordinate Divinities, is to make 
three separate and distinct Gods. Some subordina- 
tion, then, there must be in the Trinity ; some root, 
centre, or fountain of Deity; and accordingly, we 
are taught in the sacred writings, that the Father is 
the cause and source of all things ; that the Son 
emanates from him by generation ; and that the 
Holy Ghost proceeds from both. The three Per- 
sons, vitally and inseparably connected together by 
this relationship, form in harmonious union One 
God, blessed for evermore. 

This subordination is necessary to the preserva- 
tion of the divine Unity, which will be kept inviolate 
so long as all things are referred to one Head and 
Source. If this subordination is denied, we must 
either suppose the Trinity to consist of three sepa- 
rate, independent Principles, which is evident Tri- 
theism, or to be one God under three names, or 
characters, or modes of operation, which is Sabel- 
lianism. The Catholic doctrine is the only security 
against these errors. By maintaining the mutual 
relation and alliance of the three Persons, by rea- 
son of the Son's proper filiation, and the Holy 
Ghost's procession, we both preserve the distinc- 
tion of the Persons, and the Unity of the divine 
Essence. By this subordination alone can the Tri- 
nity be rendered consistent with the Unity *. 

* " This origination in the divine Paternity hath anciently 
et been looked upon as the assertion of the Unity : and there- 



chap, ix.] to the Father. 439 

With respect to the Son, his subordination clearly 
results from his generation of the Father. It has 
been proved before, that our Lord is the Son of 
God, and the Only-begotten of God in his divine 
nature, and the relation included in this Sonship 
imports derivation, and derivation implies some in- 
feriority as to Order, though none as to attributes 
and essence. u The Son," says a learned divine, 
" has received an essence from the Father, by his 
" filial derivation from him ; which is substantially 
" divine of course, because it is the essence of the 
" Father. Every son stands in the same relation 
" to his father, being a sharer in his nature, and a 
" reflector of his person. For this reason has God 
" selected these very appellations of Father and 
" Son, to shadow out to us the relation between the 
" First and Second Beings in the Godhead, They 
" mark the subordination, and they ascertain the 
" equality, at a glance. He cannot but be equal, 
" who enjoys the same nature. He cannot but 
" be subordinate, who receives it by communica- 
" tion*." 

The filiation of the Son, then, proves that he is 
not self-existent, and consequently, though the 
same in nature, second in Order to the Father, frosn 
whom he derives his being and attributes. The 

" fore the Son and Holy Ghost have been believed to be but 
" one God with the Father, because both from the Father, 
" who is one, and so the union of them," Bishop Pearson, 
On the Creed, vol. i. p. 65. 

* Whittaker, Origin of Arianism, p, 172, 



440 Christ's Subordination [chap, ix, 

whole tenor of Scripture, indeed, evinces his ema- 
nation from, and subordination to the Father, who 
is represented as the cause and source of all things. 
" In the very name of Father there is something- of 
" eminence which is not in that of Son ; and some 
" kind of priority we must ascribe unto him whom 
" we call the first, in respect of him whom we call 
(f the second Person ; and as we cannot but ascribe 
" it, so must we endeavour to preserve it*." The 
Father is often, in the Scriptures, called God abso- 
lutely and by way of eminence ; he is described 
throughout in a manner indicating transcendant 
dignity and pre-eminence ; and characterized as the 
Origin, and Cause, and Head of all things, even of 
the whole Divinity. 

It is the general representation of Scripture, that 
all things, whether of creation or redemption, are 
of the Father, and by or through the Son ; which 
proves some subordination, some distinction of rank 
or order. The Father is the primary and original 
cause and source of all things by the Son, not as 
a mere instrument, but as an efficient cause in 
subordination to the Father. " To us/' says the 
Apostle, €t there is but one God, the Father, of 
whom are all things, and we in him : and one Lord 
Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by 
him/* (1 Cor. viii. 6.) ; that is, the Father is the 
Fountain and Source of all things, even of the 
whole Deity, and the Son is the efficient, though in 

* " '\>j*t ^ iiiPii'lilO ■• 

* Bishop Pearson, On the Creed, vol. i. p. 59, 



chap. ix. ] to the Father. 



441 



some mysterious manner, subordinate Cause of all 
things. (Chap. vi. sect. iv. and xi.) There must, 
then, be some priority and pre-eminence in Him 
who is thus represented as the great First and 
Original Cause of all. 

In innumerable places our Saviour is said to be 
sent into the world, to execute a commission en- 
trusted to him, and to act in obedience to the will of 
God. This is generally referred, and justly re- 
ferred, to his mediatorial character ; but then the 
assumption of this office and character, seems to 
imply some mysterious subordination to the Father. 
We never read that the Father was sent, there 
being, as Bishop Pearson observes, an authority in 
that name which seems inconsistent with this mis- 
sion # . It were derogatory to the Father, to say 
that he was sent, or had a commission from another 
to execute ; but to say this of the Son is not so ; 
and therefore, there must be some priority and pre- 
eminence in the divine Paternity which is not in 
the divine Sonship. 

Several declarations of Scripture, by some com- 
mentators referred to the human nature and me- 
diatorial character of Jesus, are by others sup- 
posed to relate to his filial subordination. 61 All 
things are delivered unto me of my Father," Matt, 
xi. 27. ; u The Son can do nothing of himself, but 
what he seeth the Father do;" " I can of mine 
own self do nothing," John v. 19. 30. ; " I have 

* On the Creed, vol. i. p. 61 = 



442 



Christ's Subordination [chap. ix. 



power to lay it down, and I have power to take it 
again. This commandment have I received of my 
Father;" " My Father, which gave them me, is 
greater than all/' John x. 18. 29. ; " I ascend to 
my Father and your Father, to my God and your 
God," John xx. 17. Even after his ascension to 
celestial glory, he styles the Father " my God/' 
four times in one sentence, Revel iii. 12. " And 
ye are Christ's, and Christ is God's/' 1 Cor. iii. 23. ; 
« The head of Christ is God/' 1 Cor. xi. 3. ; " The 
Father is greater than I/' John xiv. 28. Many 
more texts to the like effect might be quoted ; and 
some of them, I apprehend, must be understood as 
implying an inferiority, in some sense, even with 
respect to his divine nature. 

The distinction and subordination of the three 
Persons in the Godhead, may therefore be proved 
by most certain warrants of holy Writ. The sacred 
Writers represent the Father as the great First 
Cause, self-existent, unbegotten, receiving his being 
and attributes from none ; the Son they teach to be 
begotten of God, receiving his nature and attributes 
from the Father, by an eternal generation,, and 
therefore subordinate, as being God of God ; the 
Holy Ghost they describe as proceeding from the 
Father and the Son, and consequently inferior to 
both with regard to order and origin ; and yet all 
three, distinct as to personal properties, equally par- 
ticipate in the same divine Nature, being three 
co-equal and co-eternal Persons and one God. 

H^nce, though in this Trinity of the Godhead, 



chap. ix.J to the Father. 443 

we acknowledge " the Glory equal, the Majesty 
co-eternal/' we must not derogate from that priority 
and pre-eminence which is due to the Father as the 
fountain and source of Divinity. " Now that pri- 
" viiege or priority consisteth not in this, that the 
" essence or attributes of the one are greater than 
" the essence or attributes of the other; but only 
" in this, that tiie Father hath that essence of him- 
" self, the Son by communication from the Father." 
And again, " we must not so far endeavour to in- 
" volve ourselves in the darkness of this mystery, as 
" to deny that glory which is clearly due unto the 
" Father ; whose pre-eminence, undeniably con- 
" sisteth in this, that he is God not of any other, 
" but of himself, and that there is no other person 
" who is God, but is God of him. It is no dimi- 
" nution to the Son, to say he is from another, for 
" his very name imports as much ; but it were a 
diminution to the Father to speak so of him : and 
' > there must be some pre-eminence where there is 
" place for derogation 

* Pearson, On the Creed, vol. i. p. 59 and 60. See Dr. 
Waterland, Preface to Second Defence, p. 20. 

The passage of the Athanasian Creed, in which it is said, 
that " in this Trinity, none is afore or after other ; none is 
greater or less than another," does not relate to order and 
subordination, but, as the Creed itself explains it, to duration 
and essential dignity. With respect to duration, " none is 
afore or after other/' all the Three Persons being co-eternal ; 
and with respect to essential dignity, <e none is greater or less 
than another," the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost being co-equal 



444 Christ's Subordination, $c. [chap. ix. 

The doctrine here delivered accords with the 
sentiments of the most learned and zealous defenders 
of the orthodox faith in every age. The Fathers 
of the primitive Church unanimously acknowledge 
the Divinity of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, their 
Union in one Godhead and a Subordination of one 
to the other. This must be evident to any one who 
is acquainted with their writings, or who has perused 
the works of Bull, Pearson, Cudworth, and Water- 
land. The same doctrine is supported by the most 
eminent divines since the Reformation, of whom I 
will only refer to the following ; namely, Bishop 
Pearson, On the Creed, Art. I. ; Bishop Bull, Def. 
Fid. Nic. sect. iv. and Discourse I. among his 
English Works , Dr. Waterland, Second Sermon 
at Lady Moyer's, and Preface, History of the 
Athanasian Creed, p. 144. Defence, Qu. 13. p. 207. 
Qu. 19. p. 290. Second Defence, passim ; Dr. Ran- 
dolph, Vindication, P. I. p, 21. P. II. p. 12—14. 
P. 111. p. 13.; Dr. Scott, Christian Life, P. II. 
vol. ii. p. 56. ; Dr. Whittaker, Origin of Arianism, 
p. 172. ; Bishop Sherlock, Vindication, sect. vi. 
and Socinian Controversy, chap. iv. sect. v. ; Dr. 
Hales, Faith in the Trinity, vol. ii. p. 264. 



in nature and perfections. See Dr. Waterland, Crit. Hist, of 
the Athanasian Creed, chap. x. 



CONCLUSION, 



The testimonies to the divinity of our blessed 
Lord which have been reviewed in the preceding 
pages are, with scarcely an exception, taken in 
their plain and literal sense. This is a circum- 
stance of immense importance, as it is universally 
agreed by those divines who have treated of her- 
meneutic theology, that the literal meaning is not 
to be deserted without the most urgent necessity. 
This is the fundamental principle of biblical inter- 
pretation, a departure from which leads inevitably 
into all the eccentricities of opinion, and the wild- 
ness of dreaming enthusiasm. " I hold it," says 
the profound Hooker, 1 ' for a most infallible rule in 
" expositions of sacred Scripture, that where a 
" literal construction will stand, the farthest from 
" the letter is commonly the worst. There is 
" nothing more dangerous than this licentious and 
" deluding art, which changeth the meaning of 
" words, as alchymy doth, or would do, the sub- 
" stance of metals, maketh of any thing what it 
" listeth, and bringeth in the end all truth to 



446 



Conclusion. 



" nothing*." When the literal exposition is dis- 
dained and neglected, no bounds can be set to the 
vagaries of imagination ; the holy Scriptures be- 
come ambiguous and aenigmatical ; they cease to be 
the unerring rule of faith and manners for which 
they were designed ; and by the aid of allegory, 
figure, and Jewish idiom, rash and undisciplined 
minds elicit from them a fancied support to systems 
the most absurd and heterodox. 

Much figurative language, it is true, prevails in 
the sacred Scriptures, and a bold Asiatic style, to 
which we are little accustomed in the sober and 
chastised compositions of the West. In such cases, 

* Ecclesiastical Polity, lib. v. § 59. Oxford edit. On the 
necessity of literal interpretation, see Ernesti, Institutio Inter- 
pretis N. T. P. L cap. i. Bauer, Hermeneuticce Sacra, § 7. et 
seq. Jahn, Enchiridion Hermeneuticce Generalis, § 34—40. 
J. E. Pfeifer, Institutions Hermeneut. Sac. p. 432. et seq. 
Chaldenius, Institutiones Exegeticte, p. 214. et seq. Rosen- 
miiller, Historia Inter pretationis Lib. Sac. P. I. p. 236. et ah 
Bishop Van Miidert, Bampton Lectures, p. 230. Bishop Marsh, 
Lectures, P. III. and particularly Lecture XVIII. Home, In- 
troduction, fyc. vol. i. p. 207 and 366. et seq. In speaking of 
literal interpretation a distinction is to be made between its 
application to single words, and to whole sentences. In the 
former it is opposed to a figurative or tropical sense ; in the 
latter to mystical, allegorical, or hidden sense; a sentence 
therefore may be literally interpreted, though every single word 
is not construed according to' its proper, literal, and gram- 
matical sense. It is sufficient to establish the literal interpre- 
tation of a sentence, if it be literally understood as a whole. 
See Bishop Marsh, Lectures, P. IV. Led. XXI. 



Conclusion, 



447 



allowances must be made for the amplification of 
metaphorical expressions, and they must be brought 
down to the truth and reality of things; in which 
the difficulty is seldom insuperable by those who have 
a competent acquaintance with Greek and Oriental 
literature. It is in the Old Testament in which this 
exuberance of figurative language is discovered, 
Whether, in assuming the language of Greece as 
the vehicle of communication, eastern genius de- 
scended to the sobriety of European phrase, or 
whether habits of more sedate thought, and a mode 
of expression less elevated, began to gain ground 
subsequent to the Babylonish captivity, the style of 
those Jews who wrote in Greek more nearly ap- 
proaches the chaste models of the western authors. 
The Septuagint translators, either despairing to 
transfer into another tongue, the daring figures of 
the Hebrew bards, or thinking that they would 
appear uncouth in a foreign dress, have, in many- 
places, substituted expressions more analogous to 
the phraseology of the Greeks. The general tone 
and manner of the Apocryphal books, exclusive of 
some lively and poetical descriptions, chiefly imita- 
tions of the inspired prophets, are far removed from 
the embellishments of the eastern muse *. The 

* Some at least, if not all, of the Apocryphal books were 
written in Chaldee, or in the dialect spoken at that time in 
Judea, sometimes called Syro-Chaldee, which may account for 
a few glowing and figurative expressions. It must be owned, 
however, that it is very doubtful in what language some of 
them were originally written. See Bishop Marsh, Comparative 



4*8 



Conclusion, 



Jewish historian, Josephus, is eminent for an ani- 
mated narrative, with great force and accuracy of 
description ; Philo Judseus, for a flowing and co- 
pious style, emulating the eloquence of Plato * : 
but neither, in the finest orations of the former, 
nor in the most highly-wrought passages of the 
latter, do we find the soaring dignity of Job, the 
sublimity of Isaiah, or the imagery of Ezekiel. In 
the New Testament, with the exception of the 
Apocalypse, there is nothing resembling the lofty 
and figurative strains of the Hebrew volume. The 
writings of the Apostles are historic and didactic, 
remarkable for gravity of manner, and indifference 
to elegance of language ; for the noblest senti- 
ments, conveyed in plain, unadorned expressions ; 
for evident artlessness of composition, and the 
utmost simplicity of style. The tropes and figures 
employed, are the spontaneous offspring of an ima- 
gination, warmed indeed with the grandeur of their 
theme, but tempered by a cool and dispassionate 
judgment, and are not more daring and poetic than 
what are admitted into the compositions of native 
Greeks f. 

View of the Churches of England and Rome, cap. v. Molden - 
hawer, Introductio ad Vet. Test. p. 154. et seq. Jahn, Intro- 
duetto ad Lib. Sac. V. T. passim. Gray's Key, Prideaux's Con- 
nections, Huetii Dem. Evangel. &c. 

* Brucker, Historia Philosophise, lib. i. cap. i. 

+ " Plato abounds in bold metaphors, which, I believe, will 
" be allowed to be beautiful and emphaiical; though they are 
i( more harsh and catachrestical than any in the New Testa- 



Conclusion. 



449 



By these observations, it is not meant to intimate 
that the tropical expressions of the Apostles and 
Evangelists are perfectly similar to those which we 
find in the authors of Greece ; they have, in many 
instances, a cast peculiar and oriental ; for which 
reason, a diligent study of the Old Testament, sup- 
plies the best helps for explaining the figurative 
language of the New*. While this is admitted, 
the fact is undeniable, that the figures in the New 
Testament, are neither so multiplied nor so lofty as 
in the Old ; and that the style of the Apostles 
approaches nearer to that of European writers. In 
the choice of the Greek tongue as the medium of 
communication, they surely designed to be intel- 
ligible to those who understood that language ; and 
therefore, their productions with the exception of 
the passages manifestly tinctured by their Jewish 
education, must be understood according to the 
forms of speech customary among the Greeks. 
Now, the commentators upon the literary remains 
of classic antiquity, are agreed that the literal and 
grammatical sense is never to be rejected without 

<* merit." Blackwall, Sacred Classics, P. I. cap. iii. § 6. see 
also cap. i. § 5. Though Blackwall's notion of the purity of 
the style of the New Testament is carried much too far, the 
well-grounded student will derive from his work here quoted, 
both pleasure and improvement, 

* Jones, Lectures on the Figurative Language of the Scrip- 
tures. Dr. Daubeny's Eight Discourses on the Connection be- 
tween the Old and New Testament, and several of the authors 
cited in a preceding note. 

a g 



450 



Conclusion. 



absolute necessity ; and hence, the laws of sound 
criticism forbid the interpreter of the New Testa- 
ment, to depart from the literal meaning, except 
where the language is clearly and unquestionably 
figurative. This cannot be asserted to be the case 
with the passages relating to the person and cha- 
racter of our Saviour, unless upon the previous 
assumption of his being only a human prophet, 
that is, an assumption of the very thing to be 
proved. In this mode of argumentation, the dis- 
ciples of Socinus are wonderful adepts ; and in 
truth, Unitarianism is necessitated to adopt all its 
subtilty of criticism, all its artifice of paraphrase, 
and all its dexterity of sophistry, to gain a feeble 
support from the volume of inspiration. An ex- 
pression clearly intimating the deity of Christ is 
represented as metaphorical ; a phrase of the like 
import is stated to be a common Jewish idiom ; 
and a description which invests our Lord with the 
divine attributes is reduced to a mere oriental 
figure. Thus, the clearest and most express decla- 
rations of his eternal divinity, are explained away ; 
and, though the judgment cannot acquiesce in the 
strained and far-fetched gloss, we are compelled to 
admire the ingenuity of torture, by which the 
writings of the Apostles are made to speak a lan- 
guage so repugnant to their obvious meaning. Our 
faith, on the contrary, rests upon the literal testi- 
mony of Scripture ; and, as divine revelation was 
given of God for our guidance in doctrines and in 
practice, this testimony is sure and incontrovertible ; 



Conclusion. 



451 



it is that upon which the mind can repose in the 
confidence of truth. 

If the Unitarian exposition of the sacred records 
is to be admitted, how shall we account for a phra- 
seology so dark and ^enigmatical in the lowly fol- 
lowers of Christ ? Our adversaries cannot deny 
that the divine characters appear to be ascribed to 
Jesus in numerous passages, many of which cannot 
be made to bear any other sense, without the appli- 
cation of the greatest critical subtilty. Now, on the 
supposition of our Lord's being a created being, 
what reason can be assigned why the Apostles should 
speak of him so ambiguously ? Why should they 
constantly and uniformly employ such language as, 
to readers of plain and common understandings, 
conveys the idea of his divinity ? As there is no 
conceivable motive for describing in mysterious 
terms, the person and character of their Master, 
their expressions, it is reasonable to suppose, were 
designed to be understood in their literal and ob- 
vious signification; and in that signification they 
represent him as strictly divine and uncreated. 

We may go farther, and affirm that the sacred 
Writers could not speak of Jesus in such elevated 
terms, had he been only a human being. As men 
of sound understanding, as men of integrity, anxious 
to delineate our Saviour in his true colours, they 
would have told us plainly and explicitly, that he 
was only a man highly favoured of heaven. They 
could not, consistently with a regard to veracity, 
have used expresssions so liable to be mistaken; 

Gg2 



m 



Conclusion. 



especially as the subject of their discourse was nei- 
ther difficult nor obscure. In discussing matters of 
profound research and abstruse science, which re- 
quire a penetrating and sagacious mind to compre- 
hend, some degree of obscurity can scarcely be 
avoided ; but in treating of a human prophet, there 
is no occasion for the employment of ambiguous 
terms. On the hypothesis of our Lord's simple 
humanity, nothing were more easy than to avoid 
every expression incompatible with this view of his 
character and office. And this course the Apostles 
would undoubtedly have followed, as every page of 
their writings, and the whole tenor of their lives 
demonstrate, that their object in writing was to 
inculcate truth, and not to palm a deception upon 
the world. Yet they do frequently describe their 
Lord and Master in such terms, and ascribe to him 
such offices and attributes, as apparently imply 
divinity. Had they believed him to be only man, 
how can this be reconciled with their character of 
unimpeached honour and veracity ? How shall we 
account for the adoption of a phraseology, which 
has led almost the whole Christian world to reve- 
rence and adore Jesus as their God ? 

In the description of the other eminent per- 
sonages recorded in the volume of revelation, the 
inspired Writers never drop a single expression 
which even seems repugnant to their simple hu- 
manity. The characters of Moses and the pro- 
phets are pourtrayed without embellishment; no 
exaggerated praise of their virtues ; no declaration 



Conclusion. 



453 



of exalted dignity ; no expressions which might 
lead to the opinion of a superior nature ; but they 
are uniformly and unequivocally represented as mere 
men, and nothing more *. Very short and un- 
adorned accounts are given of the Virgin Mary and 
the Apostles ; and what little is mentioned concern- 
ing them, tends to assure us, that they were only 
frail human beings, subject to like passions with 
ourselves. Revelation does not satisfy our curiosity 
respecting the nature and office of the angels ; only 
the names of two of them are recorded in the ca- 
nonical Scriptures f ; and the rest are described 
generally as " ministering spirits, sent forth to mi- 
nister for them who shall be heirs of salvation/' 
The same caution would doubtless have been ob- 
served with respect to our Saviour, had he been a 
mere man ; and he would have been represented in 
such a light as to assure us that, however high in 
the favour of God, and however elevated his office, 
he was only the Son of Mary. On the contrary, 
a picture is exhibited of him the most magnificent 
in its outline, the most splendid in its colouring. 
While we find him in fashion as a man, we can 
still trace in him the characters of divinity; and 
the rays of celestial glory which beam through the 

* As to Moses being supposed to be called " God," see 
chap. iv. sect. xvii. p. 199. 

+ Michael and Gabriel, in Dan. x. 21. viii. 16. ix. 21. The 
names of Raphael and Uriel are mentioned in the apocryphal 
books of Tobit and 2 Esdras. See Robinsons Theological 
Dictionary, voc. Angel 



454 



Conclusion. 



veil of his flesh, plainly bespeak the incarnate 
God. Sometimes he is stated in express terms to 
partake the divine Essence; at other times the 
same inference may be drawn from incidental re- 
marks • here he is represented as the Being at 
whose almighty word the whole creation burst into 
existence; in other places, he is the object of reli- 
gious adoration ; while he is often denominated by 
titles confessedly appropriate to the supreme Being, 
and delineated in terms which literally denote his 
possession of the immutable attributes of Deity. 
A language so opposite to what the inspired Writ- 
ers use in describing human teachers and prophets, 
could only originate in their firm conviction that 
Jesus was in reality, what their expressions ob- 
viously import, the eternal and omnipotent Son of 
God. 

If, on the Unitarian hypothesis, this sublime and 
lofty description of our Lord is not to be literally 
understood ; if much of it is to be considered as 
poetical amplification ; and the language of the 
sacred Writers is to be filed down to the proper 
standard of the philological balance, what opinion 
can be formed of their understandings ? Is it the 
part of sensible men, even setting aside inspiration, 
to write in a manner so ambiguous, when deliver- 
ing those truths which were to be the basis of a new 
religion ? The employment of ambiguous and 
mysterious terms upon subjects neither obscure nor 
recondite, argues a manifest incompetency in the 



Conclusion. 



455 



writers, or a premeditated design to deceive ; neither 
of which can reasonably be imputed to the Apostles, 
who, though, for the most part, plain, unlettered 
men, were endowed with sound and manly under- 
standings, and as far removed as possible from the 
slightest tendency to dissimulation and disguise. 
Their writings, moreover, as before observed, are 
grave and sober, distinguished by an artless com- 
position and simplicity of style. They deliver all 
the other truths of Christianity in a plain, unem- 
bellished manner ; and is it to be supposed, that, 
when speaking of the character and person of our 
Lord, they would forget their wonted simplicity 
and mount into the clouds ; that their perspicuity 
on every other topic should on this desert them; 
and that a style in general the most natural and 
artless, should here display the greatest profusion 
of oriental metaphor and poetic imagery ? 

Such a circumstance would have frustrated the 
great object of the apostolic labours — the overthrow 
of pagan superstition, and the establishment of the 
Christian faith. If, while Jesus was only man, they 
described him in terms naturally implying divinity, 
with what effect could they have assailed the poly- 
theism of the heathen, exhorting them to turn from 
senseless idols to the living God ? It would have 
been a gross inconsistency to charge pagans with 
impious idolatry, and at the same time to represent 
the man Christ Jesus in terms which apparently 
deified him. The deification of a crucified man 



456 



Conclusion. 



must have appeared to heathens infinitely more 
degrading", than the enrolment among the gods of 
heroes and legislators, the guardians of their coun- 
try, and the benefactors of mankind. Nor would 
their success have been greater among the Jews, 
whose aversion to every thing bearing the sem- 
blance of polytheism, and whose deep-rooted belief 
of the divine Unity, would lead them to view with 
horror a doctrine which seemed to exalt humanity 
into the throne of the Most High. Their magni- 
ficent descriptions of our Saviour, if he were a 
mere man, would have wholly defeated the object of 
their mission ; among the Gentiles, it would have 
laid their conduct open to the charge of gross in- 
consistency, and among the Jews it would have 
exposed their religion to the imputation of the most 
debasing idolatry. 

In proof of the figurative style of the apostolical 
writings, it is usually urged, that the immediate 
followers of our Saviour, naturally adopted an 
oriental mode of expression, which, though it may 
seem hyperbolical to us, was in no danger of being 
misunderstood by their cotemporaries. This obser- 
vation, if restrained within proper limits, may justly 
challenge assent. The books of the New Testa- 
ment, however, are not figurative to the extent our 
adversaries wish to represent them ; and in using 
the Greek language, the authors accommodated 
themselves, as far as Jewish writers could, to the 
style and idiom of the Greeks. Hebraisms and 



Conclusion. 



457 



Asiatic metaphors occasionally prevail; but they 
are easily distinguished by a reader acquainted with 
the oriental dialects, so that to explain a passage 
figuratively which is not clearly and evidently so, 
is contrary to every principle of rational and gram- 
matical interpretation. 

Were we to admit the Unitarian exposition of the 
passages which, we believe, assert the divine nature 
of Jesus, how shall we reconcile forms of speech 
so liable to be mistaken with the inspiration of the 
Apostles ? A degree of obscurity may perhaps be 
essential to prophecy ; but it cannot surely be 
consistent with the character of inspired Writers, 
to promulgate the fundamental articles of faith in 
equivocal terms. Is it credible, that men divinely 
illuminated, instead of teaching plain truth in plain 
language, would envolope it in a phraseology so dark 
and aenigmatical, as to lead their readers, without 
the nicest critical discrimination, into the most per- 
nicious mistakes ? It is the effect of inspiration to 
secure from the commission of error ; but will not 
the Apostles be chargeable with flagrant error, if, 
through ambiguity of style, they have caused the 
great body of Christians to confide in an expiatory 
sacrifice which has not been made, and to believe 
in the deity of the Redeemer, who was no more 
than man ? Is it possible to suppose that the first 
preachers of Christianity, if they have failed so 
egregiously in the execution of their office, were 
inspired of God ? And would Omniscience suffer 



458 



Conclusion. 



the hallowed doctrines of the Gospel to be recorded 
in language, which Omniscience must have known 
would be misconceived by nearly the whole Chris- 
tian Church, and that on points of the highest 
importance, for almost two thousand years ? 

Besides these general arguments against the 
Unitarian exposition, a multiplicity of particular 
reasons has been given for receiving, in their literal 
acceptation, the passages produced in proof of our 
Lord's participation of the divine Essence. It were 
unnecessary to recapitulate the observations made 
upon individual texts : but the preceding chapters 
demonstrate, (such is the unshaken conviction of 
my own mind) that, according to the true principles 
of interpretive criticism, there are many express 
testimonies to the divinity of Jesus ; that there are 
still more of an indirect kind, which, as they arise 
from oblique allusion, and comparison of Scripture 
with Scripture, cannot be evaded by philological 
subtilty; that divine titles are applied to Christ; 
that divine attributes are ascribed to him ; that he 
is the efficient Creator of the universe ; that divine 
worship is directed to him ; and that he is the Son 
of God with respect to his divine nature. What 
remains, then, but that we humbly receive the 
literal testimony of Scripture, and with devout 
hearts acknowledge the essential divinity of Jesus 
Christ, our blessed Lord and Saviour ! 

Such is the stupendous truth concerning the 
person of our Lord, revealed to us in the sacred 



Conclusion. 



459 



Oracles ; not revealed to gratify idle curiosity, or 
to furnish matter for empty speculation, but to be 
the foundation of practical religion. Vain will be 
the orthodoxy of our faith, if it produce not the 
sacred fruits of piety and virtue. Let it, therefore, 
call forth the pious orisons of praise and adoration 
to the Three Persons but one God ; and while in 
the fervour of devotion, we revere, and in the 
warmth of gratitude, receive, the spiritual disco- 
veries of the Gospel, let it be our care to renounce 
whatever is contrary to the purity of the Christian 
law. Knowing that sin is the fatal gangrene of the 
soul, and rebellion against God ; let us not be its 
obsequious slaves : but let the transcendant mercy 
displayed in the scheme of human redemption, 
through the sacrifice of Christ, and sanctification of 
the Spirit, excite us to a willing, a delighted obe- 
dience to the divine commands. Faith, thus work- 
ing by love, will be favourably regarded by that 
almighty Being, who is our only support in the 
changes and chances of this mortal life, who alone 
can supply effectual consolation in the day of afflic- 
tion, and in the hour of death. And, if the sin- 
cerity of our hearts has corresponded with the 
profession of our lips, when this transitory scene of 
things shall close, we shall be admitted, through 
the merits and mediation of our Redeemer, into 
the regions of celestial and unfading glory, where 
hope will be swallowed up in felicity, and faith 
consummated in the beatitude of heaven. 



460 



Conclusion. 



now to the ever- blessed and adorable trinity, 
God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy 
Ghost, Three co-equal and co-eternal Persons 
in One undivided Godhead, be all honour and 
glory, praise, worship, majesty, and dominion, 
for ever and ever. a men. 



INDEX OF TEXTS. 



Genesis. 
Chap. Ver. Page 
i. 1 ... . ... 333 

— 26, 27 69 

iii. 15 396 

v. 3 71 

xvi. 7. 13 84 

— 10 88 

xvii. 1. 3 90 

xviii. 1. et seq 84, 88 

xxii. 11, 12 91 

xxxii. 30 90 

xxxv. 9 . . .ibid. 

— 9. 11.-..-. 88 

Exodus. 

iii. 2. et seq. . 84. 90 

— 5 ^ 92 

vii. 1,2 199 

xix. 9 .... 94 

xx. 1 94 

— 2,3 338 

— 24 275 

xxi. 6 200 

xxiii. 20, 21 85,88 

xxiv. 9. 94 

xxxiii. 20 ibid. 

Numbers. 

xxii. 35 ..... 88 



Deuteronomy. 
Chap. Ver. Page 
x. 17. 200 

— 20 338 

xiii. 1—3 339 

xxx. 11, 12. ........ 109 

Joshua. 

v. 14, 15.... 92 

Judges. 

ii. 1 89 

vi. 11,22 84 

— 17. et seq 92 

1 Sam. 

xxviii. 13 200 

2 Sam. 

vii. 14..*-..* 386 

1 Kings. 

viii. 39. 262 

2 Kings. 

ii.9, 10...c 292 

v. 26 254 

xix. 15 333 

1 Chron. 

xxviii. 9 257 

xxix. 20 364 



INDEX OF TEXTS. 



2 Chron. 
Cbap. Ver. Page 

vi. 13 353 

xxxi. 8...— 365 

Psalms. 

ii. 7.. ... ............ 387 

— 12 377 

xix. 1. . . . 333 

xxiv. 8. 10 225 

xlix. 7 155. 162 

1. 6 309 

lxii. 12 309 

lxviii. 17,18.. 146 

Ixxii.lS 133 

— 15 ; 377 

Ixxt.7 309 

lxxviii. 17, 18. 56 144 

Ixxxii. 1 201 

— 6...... 202 

lxxxix. II.-.-.. 334 

— 19...-...-.™ 221 

xciv. 11 256 

cii. 24 213 

ex. 3 389 

exxxix. 23 256 

Proverbs. 

viii.22,23 .. 247 

— 22—25 156, 390 

xxx. 4 109 

Isaiah. 

vi. 1—5 156. 221 

vii. 14 172. 396 

viii. 8 173 

— 13, 14 143 

ix, 6 76. 173. 197. 247 

xl. 3 96. 210 



Chap. Ver. Page 

xl. 10 155 

xli. 4 229 

xlii.5 334 

xliii. 11 - 133 

— 15 221 

xliv. 6 158. 229 

xlv. 12. 334 

— 17 133 

— 21 ibid. 

— 22,23 . 158 

— 24,25 ...212. 219 

xlix. 1 397 

lii. 7 159 

liii. 8..^.™ 397 

lxvi. 13..... 257 

Jeremiah. 

xvii. 10 262 

xxiii. 6 212. 214 

xxxi. 22 398 

xxxiii. 16. , ...v^ 216 

xlvi. 18 221 

Daniel, 
iii. 25 390 

vi. 10 353 

vii. 13, 14 159 

xiii. 14 159 

Hosea. 
i. 7..... 100. 211 

xii. 4, 5 90, 91 

xiii. 4 133 

Joel. 

ii. 32 97.212 

Micah. 

v. 2 248. 391 

— 3 399 



INDEX OF TEXTS. 



Zechariah. 
Chap. Ver. Page 

ii. 9 101 

x. 12 101 

xii. 10 138.211 

xiii. 7 160 

Malachi. 

iii. 1 101.130.174. 219 

Baruch. 
iii. 29 109 

Matthew. 

i. 22 . 133 

23 - 171 

ii. 6 251 

— 11 340 

iii. 3 96.209 

— 11 281 

— 16, 17 400 

iv. 10 338 

v. 34.. . 175 

viii. 2, 3 166 

ix. 2— 6 284 

— 4.., 253 

x. 1 291 

xi. 10 130 

— 27 257. 295.402. 441 

xii. 6 125 

— 8 ibid. 

— 25 253 

xiii. 40, 41 306 

xiv. 22— 33 417 

xvi. 15— 17 418 

— 27 306 

xvii. 5 402 

— 25,26 125 

xviii. 18 126 



Chap. Ver. Page 
xviii. 20 . 274 

xix. 17 312 

xx. 23 . .- 311 

xxi. 25 112 

xxii. 42 127 

— 44... 210 

xxiii. 37...- 128 

xxiv. 31 299 

xxv. 31,32... 306 

xxvi. 31 160 

— 11 .271 

— 63 403 

— 65, 66 425 

xxvii. 42, 43 222 

— 54 419 

xxviii. 16, 17 342 

— 18 34.295 

— 19 29 

— 20 ...271. 275 

Mark. 

ii. 8 253 

iv. 39 166 

v. 30 167 

vi. 5... 312 

viii. 29.. 418 

xi. 30 112 

xii. 6.... 383 

xiii. 32 266 

xiv. 27... ... 160 

xvi. 16 14 

— 17....... 165 

Luke. 

h 16, 17 .......174. 210 

— 33 131 

— 76 129, 174 

— 35........ 393 



INDEX OF TEXTS. 



Chap. Ver. Page 

ii. 11... - 211 

iii. 4 174 

— 23 131 

vi. 19 167 

ix. 1 167 

— 47..~ 253 

vii. 48 286 

ix. 20 418 

x. 17—19 291 

— 17 165 

— 19 , 167 

— 22 259 

xviii. 42 . . . 1 66 

xx. 4 112 

xxi. 15 292 

xxiii. 43 „ 287 

xxiv. 49 . . 281 

— 51,52 342 

John. 

i. 1—3 16. 175 

— 3 . 315 

— 6 113 

— 10 319 

— 10,11 97 

— 12 293 

— 14 414 

— 15,30 115 

— 18 93. 259. 415 

— 33, 34 420 

— 49 221.420 

ii. 19. 21 131. 299 

— 24, 25 253. 262 

iii. 13 104. 110.277 

— 16 132. 163. 381 

— 17 382 

— 31 113. 148 

— 35..... 295 



Chap. Ver. Page 

iii. 36 163 

iv. 24 93 

— 42 132, 133 

v. 8 166 

— 17 134 

— 17, 18 427 

— 17—20. 231 

— 19 295 

— 19. 30 441 

— 21 142. 166. 299. 305 

— 21. 25.28, 29 299 

— 26 * 236, 412 

— 37 93 

— 22 306 

— 26,27 307 

— 23 343. 404 

— 18 412 

vi. 33. 38. 51 104 

— 39,40 299 

— 46 93. 107. 113.259 

— 61 253 

— 62.. 116 

— 64 254 

— 69 422 

vii. 16 267 

— 29 107 

viii. 23... 114 

— 28 267 

— 42 107 

— 58 - 117 

x. 14, 15... 260 

— 17, 18™ ... 300 

— 18 141 

— 18.29 442 

— 27, 28. 302 

— 27-30 57 

— 31—33 427 

— 34, 35..,....- 204 



INDEX OP TEXTS. 



Chap. Ver. 

xx. 31. 



Chap. Ver. Page 
x. 37, 38......... 135 

xi - 4 — 136 xxi.i 

— 25... ■ 302 — 17 

-27 , 4 2 2 

7" 43 166 Acts. 



xii -40, 41 157. 211 



— 49. 



i. 7. 



Page 

422 
141 
261 



269 



— • 267 -24.. 26!. 345 

StJ" 107 - 295 *•« 282 



163 



xiv. 1 _ 

— 7—10 ^ 

— 9.™. 71 



254 —21 



373 



-23,24.. 139 

— 33 139. 282 

— 10 _™ 168 iv. 12..VT.V. 165 



— 13 7 14 290 — 30. 



134 



— 16. 26 280 v. 31. - 132 

— 23 . £ 271 —38 112 

— 28 . ~. , .- 312. 442 vii. 2 225 

xv. 16 291 — 38 95 

— 26...- «™-... 279 — 53.™— 94 

xvi. 15 .237 — 59, 60 346. 373 

— 19.™~...™..~ 254 viii. 17 282 

— 23 377 — 37 422 

— 27,28 107 ix. 3 140 

— 28.— ~ .™ 141 — 14. 21 372. 376 

— 30 261 — 17 283 

xvii. 2 295 x. 25 338 

— 5....™. 121 —36 ,. 29d 

— 10 . . : . 238 — 40 141 

— 11....— ....... 271 —42... 307 

— 18 382 xiv. 3.... 167 

— 24 . ™~ 123. 382 xv. 8 . . . . 262 

xix. 7. ^. 425 xvi. 31 . . 163 

— 37 ...138:211 xvii.31... 307 

xx. 16 . . ,™ 1 77 xviii. 9, 10 293 

— 17 .413. 442 xx. 28 , 145. 177 

— 22... 280 xxii. 16 .. 374.376 

— 28. ...175. 221 xxvi. 8 305 

H h 



INDEX OF 




1 Corinthians. 

i« 2 . 372 

-7,8 293 

- 30 212. 219 

u\ 8 225 

UK 23 313.442 

viil 6 320.440 

. 97. 143 

3 . 313.442 

— 7 69 

Xiu4— 6... 58 

6 < 147 



TEXTS, 

Chap. Ver. 

xii.28...... 144 

XV. 3, 4 141 

— 24,28 272 

— 27 — 297 

— 28.... ~ 148 

45 . . . — ..... 144 

— . 47 105 

-49— ~ 70 

xvi.23 368 

* oorinthians. 

j. 9 305 

iii.5,6 145 

*v. 4 [ 6S 

v- 10 e...— 307 

— 18,19 145 

viii. 9 123 

xii. 8.-...- 349 

xiii. 14..— ...... 59. 368 

Galatians. 
i. 11,12...- 146 

iii. 19 ^ -.94,95 

iv »4 407 

Ephesians. 
i. 20—22 297 

— 23 148. 277 

"1-2,3 146 

9 . 327 

— 14 .. 352 

-19 62 

iv. 6.... 148 

— 167 

— 8 99. 141. 146 

— 9, 10... 114. 278 

— 11.... .. 144 

— 32._, 147. 289 



INDEX OF TEXTS, 



Chap. Ver. Page 

v. 5 180 

— 19.. 351 

— 25..... 132 

— 25.27 153 

vi.23 -. 368 

Pbilippians. 

i. 10 - 151 

ii. 6 — 9 39 

— 10 158. 297. 352 

hi. 21™....... 302 

Colossians. 

i. 15 68.93.383 

— 17 241. 278. 297 

— 16,17 r . 324 

— 19 61 

— 21,22 146 

ii. 3 261 

— 9 60 

— 10.^..-.-. 294 

— 18. ..... i . »-• 338 

iii. 11 .„ 147. 278 

— 13..., ™.. 288 

— 16 351 

1 Thessalonians. 

i. 12 180 

iii. 11—13 354 

v. 27 371 

2 Thessalonians. 

ii. 16, 17 355 

iii, 5 356 

— 16 ibid. 

1 Timothy, 
j. 12... 145.371 



Chap. Ver. p a ge 

i. 15, 16 289 

— 17...... 93 

iii. 16 ......^ 181 

iv. 10...... 133 

v. 21 „ 181 

vi. 15 226 

— 16 93 

2 Timothy. 

iv. 1... ...... 307 

— 18 366 

— 22... 357 

Titus. 

ii. 13 ^ 64. 134. 188 

iii. 5, 6.... 282 

Hebrews, 
i. 2 102. 327 

— 3 68.298 

— 5 387. 410 

— 6 148. 358. 385 

— 8 ......188. 241.411 

— 10 ... 212 

— 10—12 241.330 

"•2 -..94,95 

— 2,3.7.9.16 149 

— 5. 8 29a 

— n 152 

— 17 i4a 

... 334 

— 5,6 , 408 

— 14 151 

^.12,13 ; 262 

v. 9 i 3 3 

vi. J 3 158 

3 242 

— 24,25 243 



INDEX OF TEXTS. 



Chap. Ver. Page 
vii. 25 133 

x. 1 71 

xi. 26 99 

xii. 25 123 

xiii. 8. . ... 243 

tmm 21 .»-..... 366 



1 Peter. 

i. 10, 11 149 

iii. 18—20 100 

— 18... ... 141 

— 22 - 298 

iv. 11. 367 

2 Peter. 

i. 1 — . . 190 

— 4 151 

— 21 ibid. 

iii. 12 ibid. 

— 18 ...367 

1 John. 

i. 2... 194 

— 3.... 409 

ii. 13 246 

iv. 2. 152 

— 12 , 93 

— 14 133 

— 9 ..... • . •-■«-« ..... 385 

v. 7 73 

— 11,13 194. 294 

— 14, 15 361 

— 20 191.294 



2 John. 

Chap. Ver. Page 
3 369. 409 

Jude. 

1 . • ... o ♦ . • 152 

4... ... 195 

24,25.^..™..... 152 

Revelations. 

i. 1 272 

— 4...... 75 

— 5,6 167 

— 8... ....... »-•-. . : 222 

— 11. 17, 18 226 

— 18.. „ 240 

ii. 8 227 

— 23 ~™ 262 

iii. 7 239 

— 14... 332 

— 12 442 

— 21....... 240 

v. 8—13 361 

vii. 9, 10 365 

xi. 15 299 

xv. 3 223 

xvii. 14*.... 225 

xix. 12.. 269 

— 16.. Z 225 

xx. 12 309 

xxi. 5,6 227 

— 22 153 

— 23.. 154 

xxii. 6. 12. 16 155. 196 

— 12 308 

— 13 227,228 

— 20.., 366 



THE END. 



Printed by R. Gilbert, St. John's Square, London. 




%*1 










